In Praise of the Superficial

Still, White Lotus, Season 3, Episode 8, “Amor Fati,” Lochlan Ratliff reaching for the surface.


“Western dramatic climax was produced by the agon of male will. Through action to identity. Action is the route of escape from nature, but all action circles back to origins, the womb-tomb of nature. . . . Western narrative is a mystery story, a process of detection. But since what is detected is unbearable, every revelation leads to another repression.” – Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae, 7.

“But blessed are your eyes because they see. . . “ – Jesus, Matthew 13:16

“I look at you guys, and it feels meaningful. I can’t explain it, but even when we’re just sitting around the pool talking about whatever inane shit, it still feels very fucking deep.” – Laurie, White Lotus

I.

Superficial is not serious. For instance, a superficial wound may be painful but not life-threatening. It’s not that deep. What is superficial—or merely “sweeps over the surface of the waters”—is not really serious.

Culturally and religiously, the concept of depth is taken seriously. There is a constant stream of chatter about getting and going deeper. According to fitness guru Shaun T, digging deeper can get you that hot, toned body you’ve always wanted. Alternatively, if you enjoy the hit series Severance, you can get deeper by hosting a dinner party without food. These experiences of depth supposedly foster meaningful relationships and healthy minds and bodies.

I am not opposed to depth, meaning, or truth (I’ve worked out with Shaun T, and he’s not wrong). However, conflating truth, health, value, or legitimacy with depth tends to make one paranoid, anxious, over-earnest, and, perhaps worst of all, dismissive of what is there to be seen with one’s eyes. An obsession with depth is not inconsistent with anti-democratic instincts.

Getting or going deep may make you a fascist. Ok, but is it possible to find meaning in “inane shit”? Mike White seems to think so. White Lotus (Season 3) encourages us to celebrate and enjoy superficial pleasures.


Lochlan vision in White Lotus Season 3, Episode 8.

Still, White Lotus, Season 3, Episode 8, “Amor Fati,” Lochlan’s vision

II.

Timothy Ratliff (Jason Isaacs) is in deep. He is facing the collapse of his business and is on the verge of losing his family’s entire fortune. Confronted with destitution, he becomes obsessed with his family’s ability to survive without money and the status that comes with being ultra-wealthy. His wife, Victoria (Parker Posey), confesses that she can’t live without the finer things in life: “I just don’t think at this age I’m meant to live an uncomfortable life. I don’t have the will.”

Timothy’s son, Saxon (Patrick Schwarzenegger), seems to believe that his identity is tied to the success of his father’s business: “I don’t have any interests. If I’m not a success, then I’m nothing. And I can’t handle being nothing.” This is a curious confession because, in the previous episode, Saxon asserts that he is not one thing and is capable of change.

Mr. Ratliff’s daughter, Piper (Sarah Catherine), spends the night in a Buddhist monastery to explore her desire to live there for a year. She returns to the resort the next morning with vocational clarity:

Like, the food. I mean, it was vegetarian, but it . . . . You know, you could tell it, like, wasn’t organic, and. . . it was just kind of bland and . . .  I don’t know, it was kind of like, ‘Could I, like, really eat this for a whole year?’ And then . . . . Oh, my God. And then I went back to my room, and it was this, like, tiny little box with, like, a mattress with stains on it and no air conditioning, and . . . . I don’t know, like, I guess I am spoiled, ’cause, like… ’cause, like, I can’t live like that.

Only his youngest son, Lochlan (Sam Nivola), believes he can live sans wealth. He seems somewhat believable because, after accompanying his sister, he is not offended by the idea of living at the monastery with her. Accordingly, Loch is the only member of the Ratliff family spared from his father’s violent “cure” for an addiction to wealth.

The cure for an addiction to wealth is located just outside the villa, growing in a tree. The locals call it the “suicide tree” because the seeds of its fruits are poisonous. People kill themselves by grinding and eating the fruit seeds.

Mr. Ratliff grinds up the seeds in a blender before adding them to his piña colada mix. He offers each family member, except Loch, who gets a Coke, one of his deadly concoctions.

Timothy does not want to murder his family out of hatred. Rather, they have conveyed to him that they cannot bear poverty and humiliation. Everyone agrees that safeguarding the family from life’s challenges is his duty and the primary way he expresses his love: “Um . . . I couldn’t ask for a more perfect family. We’ve had a perfect life, haven’t we? No privations, no suffering, no trauma. And my job is to keep all that from you, to keep you safe. Because I love you. I love you so much.”

Mr. Ratliff repents of his suicidal and murderous desires at the last moment, but the next morning, tragedy strikes. Loch prepares a protein shake using the remnants of the lethal piña colada mix.

The drink’s effect is intense on Loch; we are certain he will die from ingesting the seeds.

As he loses consciousness, Lochlan experiences fleeting visions of his sister and mother. His eyes close, and he finds himself underwater, swimming gracefully toward the surface as if emerging from a full immersion baptism.

He sees four statue-like figures gazing down at him as he swims beneath the water’s surface. Lochlan feels neither panic nor pain; he seems curious about the figures on the surface even as it becomes clear that he will drown.

Loch suffocates before surfacing for air in the arms of Mr. Ratliff. Lochlan tells his dad, “I think I saw God.” I believe what Lochlan saw was a superficial way of relating to (his) family.

III.

Lochlan’s revelation is one moment of an multi-season conversation between Buddhism and Christianity (along with psychoanalysis). Mike White, the writer and director of White Lotus, is evidently well-versed in Buddhist philosophy. As a pastor’s child—his father is Mel White, a well-respected gay Christian pastor and activist—he is no stranger to Christian theology (or psychoanalytic thought). Therefore, it is unsurprising that Lochlan’s vision is part Buddhist shrine and part Christian baptismal pool. But what is Lochlan reborn into?

What surfaces is Lochlan’s connection with his father. After nearly killing his youngest son, Timothy is completely sober—he is prepared to confront what he has been avoiding with his wife’s lorazepam: the collapse of his business and the devastating financial consequences for him and his family.

On the boat ride to the airport, Lochlan sits between his mother and sister on one side and his brother on the other. His father stands apart, gazing into the ocean. He delights in the spray of water droplets (an image of life and death in White Lotus [Season 3]) created by the boat as it glides across the ocean’s surface.

Superficial playfulness inspires Mr. Ratliff to address the four (un)known figures before him: “Things are about to change. We’ll get through it as a family. ‘Cause we’re a strong family, and you know, nothing’s more important than family, right?”

His question is not a rhetorical one. As he asks it, the traditional Christian Advent hymn, “Lo, How A Rose E’er Blooming,” plays. It is a hymn of hope.

Mr. Ratliff is hoping for grace. What is Lochlan hoping for?

Earlier, Lochlan explains to Saxon why he gave him a “brojob“: “Look, all you care about is getting off, and I saw you lying there, and I thought you looked a little left out, and I’m, you know, a pleaser. I just wanna give everyone what they want, and I’m in a family full of narcissists.”

I initially interpreted Lochlan’s brojob as an attempt to gain control over his brother. Now, I don’t believe it was a power move–or even a very serious incestuous act (= an expression of real sexual desire for his brother). The brojob was intended as an act of compassion.

Lochlan’s compassion is problematic because it stems from his need to please others, to shelter others from their intense feelings. The brojob is an attempt to protect his brother from feeling left out.

Here’s the thing: feeling left out is a formative experience for most of us, psychoanalyst Adam Phillips argues, as we develop out of our first exclusion. If we are lucky, we are left out of our first intensely desired sexual relationship, namely with our parents.

The Buddhist teaching he heard while staying at the monastery with his sister–and reinforced by his vision–suggests another way for Lochlan to use his hands:

Sometimes we wake with anxiety. An edgy energy. What will happen today? What is in store for me? So many questions. We want resolution, solid earth under our feet. So, we take life into our own hands. We take action, yeah? . . . It is easier to be patient once we finally accept there is no resolution (emphasis added).  

Loch does not reach the surface—(his) family or belonging—until he stops taking life into his own hands. Striving to please others by resolving their intense feelings, he remains hidden in the depths. But what if he, like his father, begins to question the wisdom of being the source of his family’s satisfaction?


Still, White Lotus, Season 3, Episode 7, “Killer Instinct,” Saxon touches Chelsea.

IV.

In a previous post, I speculated that Chelsea is not entirely unsatisfied with Saxon. In fact, I argued that she unintentionally transforms Saxon into a lover. I further wondered what would happen if she allowed herself to acknowledge what is there on the surface of their relationship: genuine desire.

In episode 7, Saxon becomes a lover. He asserts that he is not just one thing but is capable of change. He asks Chelsea to teach him her spiritual ways.

While learning to meditate, Saxon reaches out and rubs Chelsea’s palms. His touch seems to evoke intense feelings. She quickly gets off the bed where they are meditating and awkwardly starts throwing spiritual books by her favorite author into Saxon’s lap (i.e., onto his crotch). Chelsea insists that he leave and read the books. She calls Rick, but he does not answer her call.

In episode 8, Saxon finds Chelsea sunbathing on the beach. She is impressed when he reveals that he has nearly finished reading one of her books—specifically one that contains “sex stuff,” which Saxon finds “interesting.”

Of course, Saxon misses the point of Chelsea’s surprise, and he reminds her that he is a Duke graduate; he can read! But what astonishes Chelsea is his sincerity, embodied by his actions. It appears that Sax is not just trying to get laid. She feels connected to him.

The author of her favorite spiritual books proposes a theory about how we belong to various groups made up of people we know and those we don’t, and that we somehow work together to “fulfill [a] divine plan.” Chelsea wonders if she and Saxon “are in the same group and don’t even know it.”

Just then, she spots Rick walking toward her on the beach. He has just returned from a dangerous trip to Bangkok. She abandons Saxon and runs to Rick.

It is a fateful decision, one echoed in the episode’s final moments. Now a multi-millionaire, Belinda (Natasha Rothwell) rides off into the sunset—leaving behind the man she loved and with whom she agreed to start a business. Belinda’s departure mirrors the late Tanya’s (Jennifer Coolidge), the ultra-wealthy woman from seasons 1-2 who agrees to loan Belinda money to start a business but then backs out and leaves her behind.

With Tanya’s money in the bank, courtesy of her surviving husband/accomplice in her murder, Belinda embodies the message of the song that plays as we watch her boat back to the airport with her son, Zion (Nicholas Duvernay): “Nothin’ from nothin’ / Leaves nothin’ / You gotta have somethin’ / If you wanna be with me.” The obvious irony is that the wealthy Ratliff family leaves the resort with nothing, while Belinda and Zion, who arrived with modest means, depart rich.

Leaving Saxon behind, Chelsea follows Rick to the grave. After he has gunned down the object of his hatred—who, tragically, is the man he imagined was the object of his righteous love: his own father—Chelsea finds herself caught in the ensuing gun battle. She is shot and killed.

Gaitok (Tayme Thapthimthong) shoots and kills Rick as he attempts to carry Chelsea’s body to safety. Rick falls into the water with Chelsea. Her body floats facedown toward the deep, while Rick’s lifeless face gazes at the sky as his body floats on the water’s surface.

Next scene: Lochlan surfaces; his eyes open, and he sees the cloudy sky above him–and then his father’s face. We assume it is the poison, rather than his father’s face, that makes Loch vomit before saying to Mr. Ratliff, “I think I saw God.”

Rick and Chelsea end up dead because they could not bear the faces of their lovers. Chelsea and Rick’s fate does not bode well for Belinda and Zion.

Yet, in my opinion, Rick genuinely loved Frank. When he abruptly ends his session with Frank (I refer to their meeting and Frank’s incredible monologue as an “analytic exchange” here), Frank asks, “Don’t you like me anymore?” While Frank has already jumped back onto “the never-ending carousel of lust and suffering,” Rick has nonetheless become an object of his love—a potential template for a loving relationship. Rick’s final lesson in love is embodied in his refusal to get on the never-ending carousel with Frank.

His experience with Rick brings Frank full circle. We last see him worshipping in a Buddhist temple. Failed therapy? Perhaps, but sometimes, our symptoms keep us safe. Life is very fucking hard.


Laurie expresses her sadness at dinner with the blonde blob in the White Lotus finale.

Still, White Lotus, Season 3, Episode 8, “Amor Fati,” Laurie expresses her sadness and the meaning she finds in “inane shit,” like friendship.

V.

Life’s hardships contribute to the only clear relational success story in the third season of White Lotus. The only group of people we might truly believe belong together, to echo Chelsea’s spiritual theory, is the trio of blonde friends, what Mike White describes as the “blonde blob”: Jaclyn (Michelle Monaghan), Kate (Leslie Bibb), and Laurie (Carrie Coon).

Their friendship seems troubled by superficiality—but I argue that what genuinely distresses them is the shadowy depths. They spend most of their time hiding from one another. In those depths, they can only perceive the vague, shadowy figures of their adult selves. Their long-standing friendship feels suffocating.

As they share communion, a final meal together before heading back to the airport, their conversation is again disturbed by their unwillingness to surface. They shy away from the spontaneity that is characteristic of what pediatrician and psychoanalyst Donald Winnicott defines as the “True Self.”

But Laurie decides to surface for air; she decides not to hide her life from her friends. Laurie surprises Kate and Jaclyn with new words about God, the inane depths, time, meaning, and love:  

[I]f I’m being honest, all week, I’ve just been so sad. I just feel like my expectations were too high, or . . . . I just feel like, as you get older, you have to justify your life, you know? And your choices. And when I’m with you guys, it’s just so, like . . . like, transparent what my choices were, and my mistakes. I have no belief system. Well, I mean, I’ve had a lot of them, but I mean, work was my religion for forever, but I definitely lost my belief there. And then . . . And then I tried love, and that was just a painful religion, just made everything worse. And then, even for me, just, like, being a mother, that didn’t save me either.

But I had this epiphany today. I don’t need religion or God to give my life meaning because time gives it meaning. We started this life together. I mean, we’re going through it apart, but we’re still together, and I look at you guys, and it feels meaningful.

And I can’t explain it, but even when we’re just sitting around the pool talking about whatever inane shit, it still feels very fucking deep.

I’m glad you have a beautiful face. And I’m glad that you have a beautiful life. And I’m just happy to be at the table (emphasis added).

Laurie embodies the wisdom revealed to Lochlan in his vision: she gives up striving. She can’t explain it. She is “just glad to be at the table.”

Her past, partly shared with her friends, no longer constrains Laurie. Now, she discovers meaning in “inane shit,” in the superficial stuff that “still feels very fucking deep,” revealed on the surface of their present friendship: “I look at you guys, and it feels meaningful.”

If Lochlan’s vision reveals a relational formula, friendship–or family–comes in fours. So, there is a place for us at the table, too. We are invited to join “the blob” and see if superficial friendship “feels very fucking deep.”


Still, White Lotus, Season 3, Episode 8, “Amor Fati,” Kate, dressed in red, looks out over the ocean as the “blonde blob” sails to the airport.

VI.

Mr. Ratliff is anxious about his place at the family table. He stands apart from his wife and children. “[A]nd you know, nothing’s more important than family, right?” Delighting in the play of the watery surface, perhaps he will see an important truth revealed right there before his eyes: family is just not that deep? It can be playful.

Lochlan surfaces in his father’s arms, but what, if anything, he makes of his vision (“I think I saw God”) is unclear. Is he willing to stand apart from the family? And finding himself there, sweeping across the surface of the deep, what new words will he learn to speak? What words will he learn to forget?

Forgetting is a privilege of adulthood. Children can’t forget, for example, that life is very fucking hard. So, kids use the deep end. If they are lucky, they are certain the figures on the surface are attuned and attending to their hiddenness.

Adults remember the depths. But we may also want to recall the playfulness of surfaces.

Superficiality reveals something deeply meaningful, something as close to us as the watery surfaces of our eyes: “inane shit [that] still feels very fucking deep,” like surprising forms of reciprocity, love, friendship, and faith.

Fixated on Masculinity

Still, Netflix’s “Adolescence,” episode 3, Jamie Miller speaks with his psychologist, Briony Ariston

Quick Thought(s) on Netflix’s “Adolescence“:

In episode 3 of “Adolescence,” thirteen-year-old Jamie Miller (Owen Cooper), accused of violently killing a female classmate, meets with clinical psychologist Briony Ariston (Erin Doherty). Ariston is one of several psychologists tasked with assessing Miller’s “understanding of [his] understanding.”

Through her understanding of Miller’s tastes (e.g., he likes hot chocolate with marshmallows) and dialogue with a security guard at the “secure training center” where Miller is being held, we learn that Briony is taking longer than previous psychologists to form her assessment of Miller. She reasons that getting the assessment right is more important to her than completing it quickly.

We observe one of their sessions through a single-shot perspective (only one camera moves through the space). As the camera moves and their conversation develops, one feature of the character of social media influence on teen behavior (what the series investigates) becomes glaringly apparent.

Detective Misha Frank (Faye Marsay) alludes to the cultural fixation on masculinity that has become embedded in social media (e.g., “the manosphere”) earlier in the series.

What bothers Misha about the murder investigation is that its sole focus is Miller. She speculates that Miller will be remembered, while the murder victim, Katie Leonard (Emilia Holliday), will be forgotten (and there are a good amount of posts on the internet that do not mention Katie’s character and/or her name, instead describing her as Miller’s “female classmate”).

Her partner, Luke Bascombe (Ashley Walters), rejects her claim. He reasons that the focus on Miller is necessary, and it will eventually serve justice. He is equally sure about not being “the right fit” for his own son, Adam (Amari Jayden Bacchus). Adam is smart, observant, and bullied by his peers.

Only one character genuinely challenges Misha’s insight: Jamie Miller. I speculate that Briony suddenly decides to conclude her assessment of Miller because she knows he has not forgotten about Katie.

Briony perhaps realizes that Miller can’t accept that he has actually killed Katie (recall that Miller says that the CCTV recording is “fake news,” and the young man working at Menards shares with Miller’s father that he is on Miller’s side because the video has clearly been doctored) because she has become Katie for Miller (think of his ambivalent relationship to flat chests, a feature he notices Briony shares with Katie). So, Briony ends her assessment and declines to answer Miller’s final question: Do you like me?

What is less explored is Briony’s investment in Miller. Why spend more time with him than other psychologists? Why not answer Miller’s question about whether or not she thinks he is likable?

By declining to answer Miller’s question, Briony may be refusing to side with either Katie or Miller. She will neither reject him nor affirm him, but that would be to literalize the transference: Miller’s identification with Briony as Katie.

So, why not affirm him? Why not be an avatar of love?

The answer may be simple: she (i.e., Briony) does love him. In loving him, what is she loving? Why does Briony shed tears after Miller is forcibly removed from the consulting room?

If I remember correctly, no one cries for Katie. If they do, their tears are not as memorable as Briony’s for Miller.

We are given a good reason not to cry for Katie. She bullied Miller, demeaning him on social media. But why did Katie bully Miller? Perhaps she was taught to believe that love = domination.

It is curious that Stephen Graham (who plays Miller’s father, Eddie), the show’s co-creator, wanted to “create a narrative where the crime decidedly isn’t the parents’ fault” (emphasis original). But consider his rationale:

[W]hat if I was a 13-year-old boy who didn’t really have an ideal relationship with my father, and all of a sudden I’m seeing this [misogynistic] man who has everything I aspire to have — a fancy car and loads of money — this [misogynistic] man who is everything I, maybe, aspire to be. If you’re influencing the youth with your own views and opinions, then surely you know that we need to be mindful of what’s being said?” (emphasis added).

It would seem that parents do have a role to play in crime (prevention). That is, in fact, the view of Jamie Miller’s parents–especially that of his mother, Manda Miller (Christine Tremarco).

In response to her husband’s unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his son’s actions, Manda asserts several times, “We made him.” The series concludes with Eddie’s own confession, “I should have done better.”

Miller is his parents. We can discern in him his good-natured but generally compliant mother and his loud, angry father. They did make their son, indeed.

And if boys learn that the only way to relate to the “feminine” is through control and domination, why can’t girls? Why is Katie a forgettable “bitch” while Miller is the object one mourns?

What is a “cute Asian girl”? On Desire & Love in Real Life

Film still, White Lotus: Season 3, episode 5, “Full Moon Party,” the face of Rick (Walter Goggins).

“Giving what you have is throwing a party, not love.”1

“If love is to forge a link between the One and the Other, it must involve a two that remains two—a two that does not collapse the Other into One. This is very rare indeed!2

“Only love allows jouissance to condescend to desire.”3

I.  

Sam Rockwell’s monologue on White Lotus: Season 3 (wherein he plays a mercenary named Frank) is a beautiful, surprising, and captivating moment—entirely eclipsing the development of sibling incest in the same episode—and one worth beholding in all of its kaleidoscopic splendor:4

We are all—if “we are all” a bit mad or even just mildly more interesting than a hotel restaurant—Frank’s befuddled friend, Rick (Walter Goggins). We can’t stop listening to Frank. We are fixated on his self-questioning.5

Frank asks several really good questions: “What is desire? The form of this cute Asian girl, why does it have such a grip on me?” His “insatiable” desire for the form of a “cute Asian girl” is the obvious subject of his monologue.

“Cute Asian girl” is, as Frank tells us, a “form.” As a form, “cute Asian Girl” = an abstraction. Notice that “Asian girl,” “girl,” and “woman” are all synonyms in Frank’s monologue. What he desires is an Ideal. “Asian girl” = Woman.

Curiously, what Frank misses most about his life before becoming a Buddhist and celibate is “pussy.” “Being sober isn’t so hard,” Frank tells Rick, “[b]eing celibate, though. I still miss that pussy, man.”

Sobriety may not be so hard because it dulls desire, but “pussy,” as Lil Wayne was the first in the male hip-hop world to acknowledge and celebrate, is a site of agitation.6 Frank’s ongoing desire for “pussy” makes me curious about the possibility of, in Lizzo’s words, “love in real life.”

Is love what Frank wants? Does Frank want to love an actual Thai woman?

II.

Frank’s surprising discourse likely inspires a degree of defensiveness that may stymie our curiosity. We may be inclined to dismiss Frank as just another middle-aged, straight white male colonialist for whom “cute Asian girl” = fetish.

Frank does allude to fetishism in his monologue. Recall that Frank briefly wonders if “cute Asian girl” completes him, echoing Aristophanes’s tragic speech in Plato’s Symposium.

Aristophanes, a comedic writer, gives a tragic speech about the anxious gods and their monstrous creations: doubled-humanoids. Threatened by these two-headed, four-legged creatures of three different sexes (androgynous, male, and female), Zeus disempowers them by cutting them in half. Thus, love = the pursuit of one’s missing half (e.g., if a male were originally one-half of an androgynous whole, a male and female creature, then his search would be for his missing female half).

In a way, “cute Asian girl” does “complete” Frank. As Frank is getting fucked by various dudes, he looks into the eyes of an Asian girl he has paid to witness him getting “railed.” At this moment, the asexual Asian girl is functioning as a fetishistic object. She enables Frank to become her by affirming him: “Yes, what you see in the mirror of my eyes is you!” Thus, in fucking himself (he is both the male and female in this scenario), he returns to himself what has been cut off.

As a fetishistic object, “cute Asian girl” sutures Frank’s lack. Perhaps, but Frank doesn’t take fetishism seriously. “I realized I could fuck a million women and still never be satisfied.” Frank knows that fucking a million women will not give him back what has been cut off.

III.

Enter: Buddhism.

Frank states that Buddhism “is all about . . . detaching from self,” but I think what Buddhism does for Frank is cut off his desire from the (death) drive. “I realized I gotta stop the drugs, the girls, trying to be a girl. I got into Buddhism, which is all about, you know, spirit verses form, detaching from self, getting off the never-ending carousel of lust and suffering.

According to French psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, desire qua desire is insatiable. That is, desire has no purpose.7 Desire is for desire. It is, as Frank feels, never-ending. But desire is not always a “never-ending carousel of lust and suffering.”

Like a hummingbird, desire flits from this to that. The (death) drive traps desire in repetition or obsessive fixation—in Frank’s case, on Woman. In the clutches of the drive, desire is immobilized. It becomes boring and monotonous.

The drive requires repetition/immobilization because it cannot achieve its end. On its own, it cannot bury desire. In and through repetition, the drive drives desire ever closer to what Lacan calls the Real (or, in keeping with my avian theme, the drive brings the hummingbird ever closer to the mouth of the mantis).

For Lacan, “pussy” is Real. And jouissance, like the (death) drive, serves the Real.

Jouissance is what lies beyond pleasure. “Jouissance is suffering” because it = excess pleasure.8 The drive latches onto desire and drives it beyond the limits of pleasure, beyond the amount of pleasure the subject (i.e., Frank) can bear.

According to Lacan, jouissance is “the path towards death,” toward the Real or “the Thing” (i.e., the pussy = the disturbing). “The Thing” is what is there when desire isn’t. Frank is ignorant of the fact that jouissance (= his satisfaction) is the source of his suffering—not desire.

IV.

Frank asserts that Buddhism is the cure for the “never-ending carousel of lust and suffering.” Buddhism may be such a cure, but is a cure what Frank wants?

One benefit of the talking cure (i.e., psychoanalysis) is its potential for disrupting repetition. While we can never fully know our desire (because it is always unconscious), our talk about it (potentially) frees it from the clutches of the mantis (clutches = the drive).

Recall that what gets Buddhist Frank off is “getting off the never-ending carousel of lust and suffering.” Lust and suffering, in and of themselves, do not seem to disturb Frank as much as the idea that they are never-ending features of life (“never-ending” = “a million different” Woman9).

“I still miss that pussy, man.”

V.

Enter: Love.

Frank may be right about sex when he defines it “as a poetic act,” but love is, too. Lacanian psychoanalyst Bruce Fink observes that “[l]ove is a poetic creation, a product of human creative activity.”10

Following Lacan, Fink further argues that love is a social link between the Symbolic and the Real.11 As Lacan intimates, love negotiates a more livable relationship between the Symbolic (i.e., desire) and the Real (i.e., the drive, jouissance, the base materiality of the Other or “pussy”).12

The theme of love appears in and around Frank’s monologue in at least three ways. First, love slips out of Frank’s mouth in his brief reference to Plato’s Symposium. The symposium’s ostensible agenda is to praise the god of love (discussed above in section II).

Second, love appears on Rick’s face. Throughout Frank’s monologue, Rick’s face is fixated on him, while Frank occasionally looks away. Unlike the paid Asian girl, Rick’s face is not a mirror. Rick’s face is Other; it talks back throughout Frank’s self-absorbed questioning, reflecting astonishment and perplexity. However, Rick’s face never appears disgusted or afraid of the substance of Frank’s monologue.

Finally, after Frank shares his final words, “I still miss that pussy, man,” Frank stares at Rick, but Rick looks away, down toward his crotch, and he says, “Yeah.”

“Yeah,” what? Rick is not celibate. So, what does his “Yeah” mean?

VI.

“Yeah” is a transition; it signals a shift from one conversation to another. “Love,” Lacan argues, “is a sign that one is changing discourses.”13

Fink points out the importance of changing discourses in “relations between lovers, the importance of not engaging in battle on the terrain on which one is attacked or challenged, but shifting the discussion to other ground.”14 Rick does not argue with or challenge Frank; he gracefully acknowledges the end of his monologue, shifting their conversation to the next subject.15

Rick’s girlfriend, Chelsea (Aimee Lou Wood), adores Rick, but everything she says disturbs and irritates him. He never fails to take an opportunity to dismiss or demean her, especially when she is showing the most concern for Rick’s welfare. Frank receives from Rick what Rick is unwilling to offer his girlfriend: grace.16

Nonetheless, Rick’s response to Frank may become a template for Rick’s relationship with his girlfriend. His glancing down at his crotch after Frank has shared how much he misses “pussy” may suggest that Rick (unconsciously) notices his own lack or vulnerability. Perhaps he will continue to “notice” it, opening a pathway to become Chelsea’s lover.17

It is clear that Chelsea loves Rick. In episode 6, “Denials,” Saxon (Patrick Schwarzenegger) demands to know why Chelsea did not hook up with him the night before during the wild full-moon party on the boat (while Rick is away with Frank). Chelsea shares that Rick is her “soulmate” and that having sex with Saxon would, therefore, be “an empty experience.”

“Once you’ve connected with someone on a spiritual level, you can’t go back to cheap sex,” she says. “Hooking up with you would be an empty experience.” Chelsea further suggests that Saxon is empty: “You’re soulless,” she says to Saxon.

Saxon rightly takes Chelsea’s remark as an insult. There is another way of reading it. If Lacan is correct, and “love is giving what you don’t have,” Chelsea may have (unknowingly) transformed Saxon into a lover.18 Saxon’s challenge is to recognize his lack, something he has so far shown himself unwilling even to contemplate.

Chelsea may represent the possibility that our attachments need not be so beset by “lust and suffering.” In other words, Chelsea may teach us something about love’s diplomacy. Love can work a compromise between desire and jouissance.19

VII.

Enter: object a(utre) = the object cause of desire.

Sex may be, as Frank speculates, “a metaphor” for something, like “our forms.” Love is a metaphor for object a.

Love interrupts the repetition associated with an Ideal, like Woman. It does so by fixating desire on a piece of the Real (= object a), “recognized” by the Lover in their beloved.20 In so far as object a is associated with the Real and captures desire (sans repetition), it may be associated with a compromised (death) drive and jouissance.

Love inspires/causes, fixates, and satisfies desire. It empowers us to get off on “getting off the never-ending carousel of lust and suffering.”

Example: Consider Kylie Minogue’s hit music video, All the Lovers (2010). Her beloved refuses to move, to dance, to be activated by the summons of her love. “Love demands love.”21

Her beloved, we may speculate, is reasonably worried about “all the other lovers that have gone before” him. His mistake, however, is in his thinking that he is, for Minogue, just another beloved. She very clearly tells him (twice) that “all the other lovers who have gone before, they don’t compare to you. . . they don’t compare, all the lovers.”

Like Chelsea, Minogue “recognizes” object a in her beloved. So, unlike her beloved, she is unafraid to enter into the metaphor of love.22

VIII.

Like Kylie Minogue, Frank demands love. Rick offers it, becoming Frank’s incomparable lover.

Rick’s love may inspire Frank to “recognize” his Anora. Or, sticking with Plato’s Symposium, Rick’s love (= an avatar for object a) may enable Frank to “recognize” his ágalma in the real world, in a real Thai woman.

Fink reminds us that

[i]n Greek, [ágalma means] shine and brilliancy: ágalma is something admirable or charming . . . it is a trap for gods – it draws their eyes . . . it is an uncanny object or charm – the Trojan horse, for example, is referred to as ágalma.23

As a “trojan horse,” object a is disturbing. It is disturbing in several ways. First, it is a piece of the Real. It is “pussy.” Thus, love fixates our desire on what we find most disturbing or ugly. Second, in loving object a, we reveal that we love in pieces. Fink (somewhat defensively) observes that

any analyst who has taken the trouble to elicit and listen attentively to the fantasies of actual, living, breathing, human beings is aware that what turns people on in their partners is not the “total person” but something far more partial and specific.24

Love in real life is not normal love. Fink writes,

Often it may seem that we ordinary mortals . . . are willing to love only what we consider to be “normal” in our partner, excluding anything “bizarre,” “perverse,” “weird,” or “abnormal,” excluding, indeed, all that is specific to our partner’s subjectivity. . . we consciously think our partner’s urges and pleasures weird and abnormal, but secretly they intrigue us and turn us on.25

What about Frank’s “urges and pleasures” appeal to us?

“Being sober isn’t so hard,” Frank tells us, “[b]eing celibate, though. I still miss that pussy, man.”

Frank’s Buddhism puts “a halt to repetition,” but what of Rick’s grace? Will it reveal to Frank “the potential to find love and jouissance differently than before”?26

“Yeah”?


NOTES:

  1. Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan (Book VIII): Transference, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. Bruce Fink (2015), 357. ↩︎
  2. Bruce Fink, Lacan on Love: An Exploration of Lacan’s Seminar VIII: Transference (2016), 103. I have read a great deal of Lacan, but as I recently discovered, I don’t remember reading any of it. Bruce Fink, Lacan on Love, is an excellent way (back) into Lacan. It is uncanny how it reads like a commentary on Frank’s monologue. Also helpful for understanding Lacan is Dylan Evans, An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis (1996), and Sean Horner, Jacques Lacan (Routledge, 2005). ↩︎
  3. Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan (Book X): Anxiety, ed. Jacques-Alain Miller, trans. A. R. Price (2004), 209. Cited by Fink, Lacan on Love, 135. ↩︎
  4. See Episode 5, “Full-Moon Party.” ↩︎
  5. We may think of their conversation as an “analytic exchange.” In this case, Rick is the analyst. See Leo Bersani (with Adam Phillips), the first chapter of Intimacies (2010), “The It in the I,” for a discussion of the 2003 film Confidences trop intimes “(translated, inaccurately but ingeniously, as Intimate Strangers)” (4). Anna (Sandrine Bonnaire) mistakenly confuses the tax consultant’s office with her therapist’s office (located just down the hall from the consultant’s). Anna starts to talk about “her ‘personal problem—a couples problem'” before the tax consultant, William (Fabrice Lucchini), has a chance to correct the situation. Bersani writes, “As the real analyst down the hall tells him later, William’s initial silence is understandable (both psychoanalysts and tax specialists are consulted by people with personal problems). . .” (5-6). Bersani argues that “William and Anna test the possibility of a de-professionalizing and perhaps subsequent universalizing of the conditions of an analytic exchange” (27). ↩︎
  6. Fink cites Macbeth: “[Alcohol], sir, it provokes and unprovokes: it provokes the desire but it takes away the performance.” See Macbeth, II.iii.29-30, and Fink, Lacan on Love, 23. ↩︎
  7. Victoria Ratliff (Parker Posey) comments that young people who stay in Buddhist monasteries have “no purpose.” ↩︎
  8. Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan (Book VII): The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, ed. Miller, trans. Dennis Porter (1997), 184. ↩︎
  9. Woman (singular) is intentional. ↩︎
  10. Fink, Lacan on Love, 153. ↩︎
  11. Fink, Lacan on Love, 102. ↩︎
  12. See note 3 above. ↩︎
  13. Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan (Book XX): On Feminine Sexuality, the Limits of Love and Knowledge, eds. Miller and Bruce Fink, trans. Fink (1999), 21. Cited by Fink, Lacan on Love, 181. ↩︎
  14. Fink, Lacan on Love, 180-181. ↩︎
  15. Another example of a transition in love: My husband asked me to go to the grocery store while he ran other errands with our son. He rightly interpreted the tone of my response to his reasonable request as an unwillingness to go to the store, and he became irritated with me. The tone and character of the conversation changed when I responded to his irritation by sharing that one of my car’s tires seemed to be going flat, and I was worried about driving on the tire and about it going flat in the store parking lot. ↩︎
  16. Similarly, when Frank wonders if he may be, on the inside, an Asian girl, Rick responds, “Right. I don’t know.” ↩︎
  17. Reading Fink, I realized the return of love can be shocking. “Although our tendency in past relationships,” Fink writes, “may have been to fixate on people who did not return our love, our misreading of our current beloved [i.e., construing them in the image of past relationships] may be such that we find our love being returned when we least expect it” (204). ↩︎
  18. Lacan, Seminar VIII, 129. Cited by Fink, Lacan on Love, 35. ↩︎
  19. However, her disdain for Saxon (mirroring Rick’s disdain for her) suggests the situation is more complicated. I think Chelsea is likely mistaken when she argues that because Rick is her “soulmate,” other men cease to be interesting or that sex with other men must be cheap and empty. It is far more likely that she loves Saxon, and something else, perhaps a sense of moral superiority, is holding her back from being Saxon’s lover. In any case, Chelsea is surely not indifferent to Saxon. ↩︎
  20. “Recognized” is in quotation marks because I am referring to an unconscious recognition of the disturbing. Also, if I have read Fink correctly, Ideal (e.g., Beauty) is a link between the Imaginary and the Symbolic. See, for example, Lacan on Love, 74-75, where Fink works out the connection between “ego-ideal” and “ideal ego.” ↩︎
  21. Lacan, Seminar XX, 4, cited by Fink, Lacan on Love, 36. ↩︎
  22. Lacan thinks Socrates made a similar mistake in his refusal to allow Alcibiades to become his lover. See Fink, Lacan on Love, 196ff. ↩︎
  23. Fink, Lacan on Love, 191. Anora also means shining light and is associated with what is honorable. ↩︎
  24. Fink, Lacan on Love, 192. ↩︎
  25. Fink, Lacan on Love, 203-204, emphasis is mine. ↩︎
  26. Fink, Lacan on Love, 206. ↩︎