拉岡講座230

拉岡講座230

Deconstruction of Drive
驅力的解構

3
At the other end of the chain, Freud refers to Befriedigung, satisfaction, which he writes out in full, but in inverted commas. What does he mean by satisfaction of the drive? Well, that’s simple enough, you’ll say. The satisfaction of the drive is reaching one’s Ziel, one’s aim. The wild animal emerges from its hole querens quem devoret, and when he has found what he has to eat, he is satisfied, he digests it. The very fact that a similar image may be invoked shows that one allows it to resonate in harmony with
mythology, with, strictly speaking, the drive.

在驅力鎖鏈的另一端，佛洛伊德提到滿足。他詳細地描述滿足是什麼，但是用引號限制。他所謂的驅力的滿足是什麼呢？非常簡單，你會說。驅力的滿足就是要到達我們的目標。野生動物從自己的洞穴出現。當他發現它必須吃食物，它才能滿足，它只有消化食物。人作為動物，何嘗不是如此？這顯示，飲食的滿足在神話中，或嚴格地說，在驅力的神話中，天經地義地存在。

One objection immediately springs to mind —it is rather odd that nobody should have noticed it, all the time it has been there, an enigma, which, like all Freud’s enigmas, was sustained as a wager to the end of his life without Freud deigning to offer any further explanation—he probably left the work to those
who could do it. You will remember that the third of the four fundamental vicissitudes of the drive that Freud posits at the outset—it is curious that there are four vicissitudes as there are four elements of the drive—is sublimation. Well, in this article, Freud tells us repeatedly that sublimation is also satisfaction of the drive, whereas it is zielgehemmt, inhibited as to its aim—it does not attain it. Sublimation is nonetheless satisfaction of the drive, without repression.

我們心裡馬上浮起一個反對見解：為什麼竟然沒有人曾經注意到這一點？驅力始終像一個謎團般存在。像所有佛洛伊德的謎團，它被維持作為一個賭注。終其一生，佛洛伊德並沒有假裝提供更進一步的解釋。他可能要將這個工作留給勝任的人去做。你們還記得，佛洛伊德一開始提出，驅力有四個基本的變數。其中第三個變數就是昇華。耐人尋味的，驅力有四個元素之外，竟然還有四個變數。在這篇文章中，佛洛伊德不厭其煩地告訴我們，昇華也是一種驅力的滿足，雖然它的目標被壓抑，它並沒有得到它的目標。儘管如此，昇華仍然是驅力的滿足，不算是壓抑。

In other words —for the moment, I am not fucking, I am talking to you. Well! I can have exactly the same satisfaction as if I were fucking. That’s what it means. Indeed, it raises the question of whether in fact I am not fucking at this moment. Between these two terms—drive and satisfaction—there is set up an extreme antinomy that reminds us that the use of the function of the drive has for me no other purpose than to put in question what is meant by satisfaction.

換言之，目前這一刻，我沒有正在跟你們做愛，我正在跟你們演講。嗯！我得到的滿足，確實跟我正在跟你們做愛得到的滿足差不多。那就是我的意思。當然，這會浮現一個問題：我現在這一刻到底算不算正在你們做愛？驅力與滿足這兩個術語，形成一個極端的二律悖論提醒我們，驅力的功用的使用，就我而言，沒有其它目的，就是要質疑滿足是什麼意思？

All those here who are psycho-analysts must now feel to what extent I am introducing here the most essential level of accommodation. It is clear that those with whom we deal, the patients, are not satisfied, as one says, with what they are. And yet, we know that everything they are, everything they experience, even their symptoms, involves satisfaction. They satisfy something that no doubt runs counter to that with which they might be satisfied, or rather, perhaps, they give satisfaction to something. They are not content with their state, but all the same, being in a state that gives so little content, they are content. The whole question boils down to the following—what is contented here?

所有在現場的精神分析師，現在一定會感覺到，我要將驅力的基本調適，介紹到什麼程度？顯而易見，我們處理的對象是病人，他們並不滿足於他們的現狀，我們可以這樣說。可是，我們知道，他們的一切，他們的經驗，甚至他們的病徵，都牽涉到他們的滿足與否。無可置疑地，他們自己的滿足愈多，他們給人的滿足就愈少，換言之，他們就愈自私自利。他們並不滿意於自己的現狀，但是對於自私自利的這個現狀，他們卻仍然安之若素。問題的癥結可以簡述如下：在此，有什麼東西被滿足？

On the whole, and as a first approximation, I would say that to which they give satisfaction by the ways of displeasure is nevertheless—and this is commonly accepted—the law of pleasure. Let us say that, for this sort of satisfaction, they give themselves too much trouble. Up to a point, it is this too much
trouble that is the sole justification of our intervention. One cannot say, then, that the aim is not attained where satisfaction is concerned. It is.

大體上，我可提出一個概略的說法，大家可以接受的說法：不樂之捐，仍然是滿足需要，仍然是基於快樂原理。容我們這樣說，為了這種滿足，人們苦心孤詣。目前，就是這個苦心孤詣，成為我們精神分析要介入的唯一理由。因此，我們不能說，就滿足而言，目標沒有達到。確實有達到。

This is not a definitive ethical position. But, at a certain level, this is how we analysts approach the problem—though we know a little more than others about what is normal and abnormal. We know that the forms of arrangement that exist between what works well and what works badly constitute a continuous series. What we have before us in analysis is a system in which everything turns out all right, and which attains its own sort of satisfaction. If we interfere in this, it is in so far as we think that there are other ways, shorter ones for example. In any case, if I refer to the drive, it is in so far as it is at the level of the drive that the state of satisfaction is to be rectified.

這並不是一個明確的倫理立場。但是，在某個層次上，這是我們精神分析師處理問題的方式，雖然對於正常與不正常，我們充其量比別人懂得稍微多一點。我們知道，我們的方法行得通或行不通，條分縷述起來，不勝枚舉。我們精神分析所面對的，是一個結果一切都好的系統，這個系統自己志得意滿。我們介入干涉，是因為我們認為，還有其它途徑，例如，更簡捷的途徑。無論如何，假如我提到驅力，那是因為在驅力的這個層次，滿足的狀態可以被改正過來。

This satisfaction is paradoxical. When we look at it more closely, we see that something new comes into play—the category of the impossible. In the foundations of the Freudian conceptions, this category is an absolutely radical one. The path of the subject—to use the term in relation to which, alone,
satisfaction may be situated—the path of the subject passes between the two walls of the impossible.

這個滿足是矛盾的。當我們看得更仔細，我們看到某件新的東西在運作，某件不可能領域的範疇。在佛洛伊德的觀念的基礎，這個範疇絕對是激進的。主體的途徑，容我使用跟滿足的情境有關的術語。主體的途徑，穿越於不可能的兩個牆壁之間。

This function of the impossible is not to be approached without prudence, like any function that is presented in a negative form. I would simply like to suggest to you that the best way of approaching these notions is not to take them by negation. This method would bring us here to the question of the possible, and the impossible is not necessarily the contrary of the possible, or, since the opposite of the possible is certainly the real, we would be led to define the real as the impossible.

這個不可能領域的功用，就像其它具有負面形式的功用，接近時，我們必須小心翼翼。我僅想要建議一點，接近這些觀念的最佳方法是，不要將它們以負面形式看待。憑藉這樣的方法，我們才會到達可能的領域。不可能領域未必就是可能領域的相反，但是因為可能領域的相反領域，確實就是真實界的領域，我們不得不將真實界定義為不可能的領域。

Personally, I see nothing against this, especially as, in Freud, it is in this form that the real, namely, the obstacle to the pleasure principle, appears. The real is the impact with the obstacle; it is the fact that things do not turn out all right straight away, as the hand that is held out to external objects wishes. But I think this is a quite illusory and limited view of Freud’s thought on this point. The real is distinguished, as I said last time, by its separation from the field of the pleasure principle, by its desexualization, by the fact that its economy, later, admits something new, which is precisely the impossible.

就我個人而言，我認為這樣說沒有什麼不妥。特別是在佛洛伊德學說，快樂原理求之而不可得的真實界，就是以這種形式出現。到達真實界的途徑阻礙重重。因為這樣，事情往往無法馬上令人稱心滿足，伸手向外索取，也無法如願以償。但是我認為，在佛洛伊德學說的這一點，我們的觀點過於狹隘而不切實際。如我上一次所說，真實界的顯現，在於跟快樂原理的領域區隔，在於自身的性的超越，在於真實界的運作，換顯現某件新的東西，準確地說，就是顯現不可能領域。

But the impossible is also present in the other field, as an essential element. The pleasure principle is even characterized by the fact that the impossible is so present in it that it is never recognized in it as such. The idea that the function of the pleasure principle is to satisfy itself by hallucination is there
to illustrate this—it is only an illustration. By snatching at its object, the drive learns in a sense that this is precisely not the way it will be satisfied. For if one distinguishes, at the outset of the dialectic of the drive, not from Bedilrfnis, need from the pressure of the drive—it is precisely because no object of any Not, need, can satisfy the drive.

但是，這個不可能領域也出現在其它領域，作為一個基本的元素。快樂原理的特徵同樣也是，不可能領域出現在那裡，只是從來沒有恰如其份地被人承認。快樂原理的功用，就是要以幻覺滿足自己。這個事實足以說明，但充其量只是說明。驅力企圖奪取它的目標時，他馬上恍然大悟，這確實並不是它所要滿足的方式。因為在驅力的辯證之初，我們就區別需求與驅力的壓力，有何不同，確實就是因為沒有一個負面需求的客體，能夠滿足驅力。

Even when you stuff the mouth—the mouth that opens in the register of the drive—it is not the food that satisfies it, it is, as one says, the pleasure of the mouth. That is why, in analytic experience, the oral drive is encountered at the final term, in a situation in which it does no more than order the menu. This
is done no doubt with the mouth, which is fundamental to the satisfaction—what goes out from the mouth comes back to the mouth, and is exhausted in that pleasure that I have just called, by reference to the usual terms, the pleasure of the mouth.

即使你將食物填滿嘴巴，在驅力領域展開的嘴巴，滿足它的並不是食物，而是嘴巴的爽快，如一般人所言。那就是為什麼在精神分析的經驗，口腔的驅力被放置在最後一期，只充當點菜單的情境之用。無可置疑地，這跟嘴巴有關係，因為嘴巴是滿足的根本所在。從嘴巴出來的東西，又回到嘴巴，在我剛才所提到的快樂領域消耗殆盡，用俗話說，就是嘴巴的爽快。

This is what Freud tells us. Let us look at what he says—As far as the object in the drive is concerned, let it be clear that it is, strictly speaking, of no importance. It is a matter of total indifference. One must never read Freud without one’s ears cocked. When one reads such things, one really ought to prick up one’s ears. How should one conceive of the object of the drive, so that one can say that, in the drive, whatever it may be, it is indifferent?

這就是佛洛伊德告訴我們的。讓我們看看他怎麼說：「顯而易見，驅力的客體，並不重要。它完全無足輕重。」我們閱讀佛洛伊德的這番話，必然大吃一驚。對於這樣的說法，我們確實應該洗耳恭聽。我們如何能夠將驅力的客體，或不管驅力的什麼東西，構想成無足輕重？

As far as the oral drive is concerned, for example, it is obvious that it is not a question of food, nor of the memory of food, nor the echo of food; nor the mother’s care, but of something that is called the breast, and which seems to go of its own accord because it belongs to the same series. If Freud makes a remark to the effect that the object in the drive is of no importance, it is probably because the breast, in its function as object, is to be revised in its entirety.

例如，就口腔的驅力而言，顯而易見，問題不是食物，不是對於食物的回憶，或食物的迴響，或母親的關愛，而是某件被稱為是乳房的東西。這個東西自動會蹦出來，因為它屬於跟口腔相同的系列。佛洛伊德表述過，大意是說，驅力的客體並不重要。那可能是因為乳房在其作為客體的功用上，應該從整體來重新考量。

To this breast in its function as object, objet a cause of desire, in the sense that I understand the term—we must give a function that will explain its place in the satisfaction of the drive. The best formula seems to me to be the following—that lapulsion en fait le tour.1 I shall find other opportunities of applying it to other objects. Tour is to be understood here with the ambiguity it possesses in French, both turn, the limit around which one turns, and trick.

依據我對於小客體的術語的了解，乳房作為欲望的小客體，我們必須界定它在驅力的滿足方面，有何功用。我覺得，最佳的公式似乎如下：驅力遊走及耍弄客體。我將再找其它機會，將這一個公式應用到其它客體。Tour 在法文的理解是一語雙關，兼具有迴轉、繞著圈圈迴轉，及耍弄的模稜兩可。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw