Lacan 410

Lacan 410
The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious

佛洛伊德的無意識：主體的顛覆及欲望的辯證
Desire of Sexuality and Subject
性欲望與主體
And if the somatic ananke of man’s powerlessness for some time after birth to move of his own accord, and a fortiori to be self-sufficient, ensures that he will be grounded in a psychology of dependence, how can that ananke ignore the fact that this dependence is maintained by a world of language, precisely because by and through language needs are diversified and reduced to a point at which their scope appears to be of a quite different order, whether in relation to the subject or to politics? To sum up: to the point that these needs have passed over into the register of desire, with all that this brings in terms of an obligation to confront our new experience with its paradoxes, which have always interested the moralist, with that mark of the infinite that theologians find in it, even with the precariousness of its status, as expressed in its most extreme form by Sartre: desire, a useless passion.

即使人出生後有一段時間，自己沒有能力自行活動，更不用說要自給自足，這是人生理上的宿命，這個宿命註定人在心理上的依賴性，但是我們如何能夠忽略，這種依賴性有賴於語言的世界來維持的事實？確實就是憑藉及透過語言，人的需求變得多樣化，但是無論是跟主體或跟政治的關係，基本上的需求卻還是大同小異，總而言之，人的需求已經淪落到只是欲望蠢蠢欲動的層次。對於欲望蠢動的矛盾，我們精神分析經驗有義務去面對及探討其結果。道德家對這個問題也一直感到興趣，神學家則是在欲望的蠢動中發現[人對於永生的嚮往，儘管它的狀態不太穩定。用哲學家沙特的偏激用詞來說，欲望是一種無用的激情。

What psychoanalysis shows us about desire in what might be called its most natural function, since on it depends the propagation of the species, is not only that it is subjected, in its appropriation, its normality, in short, to the accidents of the subject’s history ( the notion of trauma as contingency), but also that all this requires the co-operation of structural elements, which, in order to intervene, can do very well without these accidents, whose effects, so unharmonious, so unexpected, so difficult to reduce, certainly seem to leave to experience a remainder that drove Freud to admit that sexuality must bear the mark of some unnatural split ( felure).

精神分析學所顯示的欲望，我們可以稱之為欲望的最自然的功用，因為它跟傳宗接代的繁殖有關。欲望的代理、欲望的佔用、總之、欲望的正常與否，不但要依靠個人成長歷程的遭遇（因為隨時都有遭受創傷的可能），而且這一切還需要結構因素的合作。假如沒有意外的遭遇，這些結構因素的合作，尚能順利地進行。
這些意外遭遇的影響如此的不合諧，如此的出人意料，如此難於疏解，以致它們確實留給精神分析經驗一種對於創傷的餘悸。面對這種餘悸，佛洛伊德不得不承認，性具有某些不自然分裂的表徵。

I would be wrong to think that the Freudian myth of the Oedipus complex had put an end to theology on the matter. For it is not enough to wave the flag of sexual rivalry. It would be better to read what Freud has to say about its co-ordinates; for they amount to the question with which he himself set out: “ What is Father?”

假如我們以為佛洛伊德提出有關伊底普斯情結的神話，父子關係牽涉到性的宗教神學就告結束，那可就錯了。因為光是揮動性的敵意的旗幟，是不足以自圓其說。我們最好閱讀佛洛伊德有關性的敵意的內容描述，因為它們等於他自己一開頭所提出的問題：「天父是什麼？」

“ It is the dead father”, Freud replies , but no one listens, and, concerning that part of it that Lacan takes up again under the heading ‘ Name-of-the-Father’, it is regrettable that so unscientific a situation should still deprive him of his normal audience.

「那是死去的父親！」佛洛伊德回答，但是無人傾聽。拉岡我，再一次接續那個部份的研究，標題是：「以天父之名」。很遺憾，我當時發表論文的場合，並非是正式的學術會議，聽眾並非很具有精神分析學的素養。

Yet analytic reflexion has centered vaguely on the problematic meconnaissance on the part of certain primitive peoples of the function of the progenitor, and psychoanalysts have argued, under the contraband banner of ‘ culturalism’, over the forms of an authority of which it cannot even be said that any sector of anthropology has provided a definition of any scope.

可是，精神分析學的反省模糊地集中於某些原始祖先的「誤識」的問題。在「文化主義」的違禁旗幟下，精神分析師爭論有關文化威權的形式。問題是，關於這一點，我們無法說，有任何人類學的學派曾提供明確的定義。

Will we have to be overtaken by the practice, which may in the course of time become common practice, of artificially inseminating women who have broken the phallic bounds with the sperm of some great man, before a verdict on the paternal function can be dragged out of us ?

我們要迎頭趕上婦女人工授精的時代潮流嗎？婦女接受一些傑出人物的人工授精，打破需要陽具交媾的限制。這個潮流會越來越普及，理所當然的父權文化會因此而蕩然無存嗎？

Yet the Oedipus complex cannot run indefinitely in forms of society that are more and more losing the sense of tragedy.

可是，伊底普斯情結無法漫無邊際地運作，當社會的形態越來越失去悲劇的情懷。

Let us set out from the conception of the Other as the locus of the signifier. Any statement of authority has no other guarantee than its very enunciation, and it is pointless for it to seek it in another signifier, which could not appear outside this locus in any way. Which is what I mean when I say that no meta-language can be spoken, or, more aphoristically, that there is no other of the other. And when the legislator ( he who claims to lay down the Law) presents himself to fill the gap, he does so as an imposter.

讓我們從大它者作為意符的軌跡的觀念出發。除了本身的表達外，任何權威的陳述並無其它保證。讓意符在其它的意符尋找保證是徒勞沒有意義的，因為保證必須要出現在意符自己的軌跡之內。這就是我的意思，當我提到純粹分析性的語言，簡明地說，沒有大它者的大它者存在。假如有所謂的「神聖立法者」（自己宣稱為世界建立行為的法則）自認為是大它者的大它者，他是個騙子。

But there is nothing false about the law itself, or about him who assumes its authority.

但是法則的本身，不是騙子，自認為具有這個權威的人，也不是騙子。

The fact that the Father may be regarded as the original representative of this authority of the law requires us to specify by what privileged mode of presence he is sustained beyond the subject who is actually led to occupy the place of the Other, namely, the Mother. The question, therefore, is pushed still further back.

天父可以被認為是律法的權威的原先代表，這個事實要我求我們明確指出，
憑藉怎樣的特權模式，他可以置身於主體之外。實際上，這個主體被認為佔有大它者的位置，換言之，佔有母親的位置。因此，這個問題還要更進一步釐清。

It would seem odd, no doubt, that in opening up the immeasurable space that all demand implies, namely, that being a request for love, I should not leave more play to the question; but should concentrate it on that which is closed this side of it, by the very effect of demand, in order to give desire its proper place.

無疑地，這聽起來似乎是有點怪異，。當我們打開無數的空間，所有的要求都意味著，愛的渴望的要求。對於這個問題，我不應該再拐彎抹角，而應該專注討論，愛的渴望如何被要求的後果所封閉，這樣，欲望才能適當地運作。

Indeed, it is quite simply, and I will say later in what way, as desire of the Other that man’s desire finds form, but it does so in the first instance by representing need only by means of a subjective opacity.

的確，道理很簡單。我將要談到，以怎樣的意義，人的欲望在大它者的欲望中，找到表達的形式，雖然剛開始時，人的欲望只是一個主觀性的朦朧欲望，為了要從大它者的欲望那裡，滿足自己的需求。

I will now explain by what way, this opacity produces, as it were, the substance of desire.

我現在再解釋，以怎樣的方式，這個朦朧的欲望組成所謂的欲望的本質。

Desire begins to take shape in the margin in which demand becomes separated from need; this margin being that which is opened up by Other, under the form of the possible defect, which need may introduce into it, of having no universal satisfaction ( what is called ‘anxiety’). A margin which, linear as it may be, reveals its vertigo, even if it is not trampled by the elephantine feet of the other’s whim. Nevertheless, it is this whim that introduces the phantom of the Omnipotence, not of the subject, but of the Other in which his demand is installed ( it is time this idiotic cliché was, once and for all, put back in its place), and with this phantom the need for it to be checked by the Law.

欲望先在要求跟需求分開的邊緣，組成雛型。這個邊緣是要求打開的邊緣，因為對於大它者而言，這個要求的呼籲有時是無條件的。要求藉口需求可能會產生裂痕，因為需求沒有給予要求的予取予求（這被稱為焦慮）。這個邊緣雖然是線狀發展，假如沒有大它者的關注，像大象的粗壯的腳一般踩住，它會卻繞來繞去，暈眩轉向。可是，就是這個大它者的關注，卻產生了無所不能的魅影，不是主體的魅影，而是大它者的魅影，因為主體的要求，被安置在大它者的無所不能那裡。（我們不妨說，這就是上帝是萬能的陳腔濫調）對於這個大它者無所不能的魅影，我們有需要用律法予以約束。

But I will stop there and return to the status of the desire that presents itself as autonomous in relation to this mediation of the law, for the simple reason that it originates in desire, by virtue of the fact that by a strange symmetry it reverses the unconditional nature of the demand for love, in which the subject remains in subjection to the Other, and raises it to the power of absolute condition ( in which ‘absolute’ also implies ‘ detachment’)

但是，這個議題，我在這裡打住。我們再回到欲望呈現自己，不受律法的仲裁約束，作為自主的地位，因為律法原先就是因為欲望才產生。這裡有一個古怪的對稱，欲望倒轉對於愛的無條件的要求，因為主體在愛的無條件要求中，始終屈服於大它者，將大它者供奉到「絕對狀況」的力量。（在這個狀況上，「絕對」也意味著「保持距離」。）

For the gain obtained over anxiety with regard to need, this detachment is successful in its first, humblest form, that in which it was detected by a certain psychoanalyst in the course of his pediatric practice, and which is called ‘ the transitional object’, in other words, the bit of ‘ nappie’ or the beloved bit of material that the child never allows to leave his lips or hand.

對於克服需求不能滿足的焦慮，這個敬而遠之的態度，剛開始的效果還頗得心應手。有一位研究兒童心理學的精神分析師覺察到這一點，稱之為「過渡期的客體」。換言之，奶嘴總是含在嬰兒嘴中，或其它可愛的東西，嬰兒愛不釋手。

This is no more than an emblem, I say; the representative of representation in the absolute condition is at home in the unconscious , where it causes desire according to the structure of the fantasy that I will now extract from it.

我的意見是，這僅僅是一個象徵，是大它者的絕對狀況，舒適自在於無意識的情境的符號的代理。在無意識那裡，這個過渡的客體依照幻想的結構，產生需求的欲望。這個幻想結構，讓我再描述其大要。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw