Zizek 02

Looking Awry by Zizek 紀傑克:歪斜看

Translated by Springhero                        雄伯譯

32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

 

The Woman Does Not Exist

那位女人不存在

 

  Given the central status of deception in relation to the symbolic order, one has to draw a radical conclusion the only way not to be deceived is to maintain a distance from the symbolic order, i.e., to assume a psychotic position. A psychotic is precisely a subject who is not duped by the symbolic order.

 

   假如考慮到欺騙跟符號秩序相關的地位,我們必須得到一個激進的結論:唯一不要被欺騙的方法就是跟符號秩序保持距離,換言之,採取變態的立場。變態狂準確就是不被符號秩序欺騙的人。

 

   Let us approach this psychotic position via Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes, probably the most beautiful and effective variation on the theme of the “ disappearance that everybody denies.” The story is usually told from the point of view of a hero who, quite by chance, becomes acquainted with a pleasant, somewhat eccentric person; soon afterward, this person disappears and when the hero tries to find him or her, all those who saw them together remember nothing about the other ( or even remember positively that the hero was alone), so that the very existence of this missing person passes for a hallucinatory  idée fixe of the hero. In his conversations with Truffaut, Hitchcock himself mentions the original of this series of variations; it is the story of an old lady who  disappeared from her hotel room in Paris in 1880, at the time of the Great Exhibition. After the Lady Vanishes, the most famous variation is undoubtedly Cornell Woolrich’s roman noir, Phantom Lady, in which the hero spends the evening with a beautiful, unknown woman whom he encounters at a bar. This woman, who subsequently disappears and whom no on will admit seeing, turns out to be the only alibi the hero has to encounter a charge of murder.

 

    讓我們藉由希區考克的「失蹤疑雲」可能是最美麗生動的描繪有關「人人否認的失蹤」的主題。這故事通常是主角的觀點敘述。他偶然地結識一位爽朗卻怪僻的人,不久這個人失蹤。當主角設法尋找他或她時,所有看見過他們在一起的人都否認記得認何事情(有些人甚至肯定地說主角是單獨的)。因此這個失蹤者的存在被認為是主角的幻想。跟特拉佛談話時,希區考克提到這一系列主題的原先出處是1880年巴黎博覽會時,一位老婦人從旅館失蹤。繼「失蹤疑雲」後,最著名的同樣主題影片是吳瑞奇導演的偵探影片「魅影女人」。主角跟一位在酒吧認識的美麗陌生女子過了一夜。這個女子隨後失蹤,沒有人承認見過,卻成為唯一個理由主角必須面對謀殺的控訴。

 

   In spite of the utter improbability of these plots, there is something “ psychologically convincing” about them—as if they touched some chord in our unconscious. To understand the apparent “ rightness” of these plots, we should note first of all that the person who disappears is as a rule a very ladylike woman. It is difficult not to recognize in this phantomlike figure the apparition of Woman, of the woman who could fill out the lack in man, the ideal partner with whom the sexual relationship would finally be possible, in short. The Woman who, according to Lacanian theory, precisely does not exist. The nonexistence of this woman is rendered manifest to the hero by the absence of the inscription in the socio-symbolic network: the intersubjective community of the hero acts as if she does not exist, as if she were only his idee fixe.

  

     儘管這些情節匪夷所思,心理層面還是有些讓人深信不疑之處,好似他們觸及到我們的無意識的共鳴。為了瞭解到這些情節的顯然「合理」,我們首先要注意到,失蹤的人通常是高貴婦人。我們很難不在這個魅影的人物中認出一種女人的魅影,能夠填補男人的欠缺,總之,跟這樣理想的伴侶,性關係最後才成為可能。依照拉岡的理論,這樣的女人並不存在。在社會符號網絡中並沒有銘記使這樣的女人的不存在更為明顯:主角所生存的人際互動的社會表現得她好似不存在,好似她只是他的幻見

 

 

    Where should we locate the “ falsity” and at the same time the attraction, the irresistible charm, of this theme of the “ disappearance which everybody denies”? According to the ordinary ending of this kind of story the lady who disappeared was not, in spite of all evidence to the contrary, simply the hero’s hallucination. In other words, The Woman does exist. The structure of this fiction is the same as that of well-known joke about a psychiatrist to whom a patient complains that there is a crocodile under his bed. The psychiatrist tries to convince the patient that this is just a hallucination , that in reality there is no crocodile under his bed. At the next secession, the man persists in his complaints and the psychiatrist continues his efforts of persuasion. When the man doe not come for the third session, the psychiatrist is convinced that the patient has been cured. Some time later, upon meeting one of the man’s friends, the psychiatrist asks him how his former patient is doing, the friend replies: “ Whom do you mean exactly. The won who was eaten by a crocodile?”

   

    對於這「人人否認的失蹤」的主題,我們該從那裡找出「虛假」的位置,而同時又覺得其迷人及無法抗拒的魅力?依照這種故事的普通結局,失縱的女人其實沒有失蹤,儘管相反的證據,只是主角的幻想。換言之,女人確實存在。這種幻想影片的結構類同於一個精神分析師的著名笑話:一位病人抱怨床下有隻鱷魚。精神分析師設法說服病人,這只是幻想,實際上,在他床下並沒有鱷魚。在下次諮商時,那個人持續抱怨,精神分析師繼續說服。第三次那人沒有人,精神分析師相信病人已經痊癒。隔一段時間後,遇到那個人的朋友,精神分析師問他他先前病人的近況。他的朋有回答說:「你是講哪一位?被鱷魚吃掉的那一位?」

 

    At first sight, the point of this kind of story seems to be that the subject was right to oppose the doxa of the other : the truth is on the side of his idée fixe, even though his insistence on it threatened to exclude him from the symbolic community. Such a reading nevertheless obscures an essential feature, which can be approached via another, slightly different variation on the theme of the “ realized hallucination.” Robert Heinlein’s science fiction short “ They.” Its hero, confined to a lunatic asylum, is convinced that the whole of external, objective reality is a gigantic mise-en-scene staged by “ them” in order to dupe him. All the people around him are part of this trickery, including his wife. ( Thing became “clear” to him a few months previously while setting out a Sunday drive with his family. He was already in the car, it was raining outside, when he suddenly remembered that he had forgotten some small detail and returned to the house. Casually looking through the rear window on the second floor, he noticed that the sun was shining brightly, and realized that “ they” had made a small mistake by forgetting to stage the rain behind the house!” His benevolent psychiatrist, his lovely wife, all his friends try desperately to bring him back to “ reality”; when he finds himself alone with his wife and she professes her love for him, he is almost duped for an instant into believing her, but his old conviction stubbornly prevails. The end of the story : after leaving him, the women posing as his wife reports to some unidentified agency: “ We failed with subject X, he still has doubts, mainly because of our mistake over the rain-effect: we forgot to arrange it behind his house.”

 

    乍看來,這種故事的要點是主體反對大它者的支配是有道理的。真理是在幻見的這一邊,即使他對於幻見的堅持威脅到使他被排除在符號社會之外。可是這樣的閱讀方式模糊掉一個基本特徵,對於「幻想實現」的主題,我們若是藉由羅勃、海連的科幻短篇故事「他們」,我們可以得到另一種稍微不同的看法。它的主角被拘留在瘋人院,相信整個的外在真實是「他們」展示的巨大的舞台,只是為了詐騙他。所有的人都是詭計的一部份,包括他的太太。(事情變得更加明朗,就在前幾個月,他跟家人星期日出去兜風。他已經在汽車裡,外面下著雨。他突然想起一歇細節,回到房屋。偶爾透過二樓的後窗,他發現到陽光燦爛照耀,然後體會到「他們」犯了一個小錯誤,忘了在屋後展示雨景!)他的善意的精神分析師,他可愛的太太,所有他的朋友都極力將他帶回現實。當他發現跟太太單獨在一起時,她宣稱她愛他,有那麼一瞬間他被誘拐相信她,但是他原有的信念頑強地佔優勢。故事的結局:離開他後,這位扮演他妻子的女人向不明的單位報告:「我們對於X目標失敗,他依舊有懷疑,主要是我們對於雨景效果弄砸。我們忘了在他屋後安排雨景。」

 

   Here, as well as with the joke about the crocodile, the denoument is not interpretive, it does not transpose us into another frame of reference. In the end, we are thrown back to the beginning: the patient is convinced that there is a crocodile under his bed, and there really is a crocodile under his bed: Heinlein’s hero thinks that objective reality a mise-en-scene organized by them.” What we have here is a kind of successful encounter: the final surprise is produced by the fact that a certain gap ( the contents of the hallucination) and “ reality” ) is abolished. This collapse of “ fiction” ( the contents of the hallucination) and “ reality” defines the psychotic universe. It is, however, only the second story ( “ They” that enables us to isolate the crucial feature of the mechanism at work; there the deception of the big Other is located in an agent, another subject ( “ they”) who is not deceived. This subject, who holds and manipulates the threads of the deception proper to the symbolic order, is what Lacan calls “ the Other of the Other.” This other emerges as such, acquires visible existence, in paranoia, in the form of the persecutor supposed to master the game of deception.

  

   跟鱷魚的笑話一樣,這裡的結局並不是解釋性的。它並沒有將我們轉移到另一個解說的架構。最後,我們被拋回到開始:病人相信有鱷魚在他的床下;海連的主角認為客體真實是「他們」組辦的舞台。我們在此所擁有的是一種成功的遭遇:某種差距(分開幻想與現實)被袪除產生了最後的驚奇。「幻想」(幻想的內容)及「真實」的崩塌界定了變態狂的宇宙。可是,這只是「他們」的第二個故事,使我們能夠將運作中的機構的重要特徵孤立出來,大他者的欺騙位於代理人,另外一個沒有被欺騙的主體。擁有及操控符號秩序的欺騙本體,就是拉岡所謂的「大他者的大他者」。這個大他者如此地出現在偏執狂身上,得到可見的存在,以應該事操控欺騙遊戲的迫害者的身分。

 

   Herein lies then the crucial feature the psychotic subject’s distrust of the big Other, his idée foxe that the big Other ( embodied in the intersubjective community) is trying to deceive him, is always and necessarily supported by an unshakable belief in a consistent Other, an Other without gaps, an “ Other of the Other” ( “ they” in Heinlein’s story). When the paranoid subject clings to his distrust of the Other of the symbolic community, of “ common opinion,” he implies thereby the existence of “ Other of this Other,” of a nondeceived agent who holds the reins. The paranoiac’s mistake does not consist in his radical disbelief, in his conviction that there is a universal deception—here he is quite right, the symbolic order is ultimately the order of a fundamental deception—but rather, in his belief in a hidden agent who manipulates this deception, who tries to dupe him into accepting that “ The Woman does not exist,” for example. This would be, then, the paranoid version of the fact that “ The Woman does not exist”: she certainly does exist; the impression of her nonexistence is nothing but an effect of the deception staged by the conspiratory Other, like the gang of conspirators in The Lady Vanishes who try to dupe the heroine into accepting that the lady who vanished never existed.

 

   變態狂的主體不信任大他者的重要特徵就在這裡(鑲嵌於互為主體的社會)。他的幻想大他者正在欺騙他,總是而且是必須不可動搖的信仰一貫的大他者所支持,在海連的故事中,是一個沒有差距的大他者。當偏執狂的主體緊緊捉住對於符號社會大他者及「共同意見」的不信任,他因此暗示著「這個大他者的大他者」的存在,主導一切的非欺騙的代理人的存在。這位偏執狂的錯誤並不是在於他激進的不信仰,在此他完全沒錯,符號秩序最後就是基本欺騙的秩序,而是在他信仰隱藏的代理人操控這個欺騙,設法欺騙他接受例如「這個女人不存在」。因此,這將事偏執狂對於女人不存在的事實的說法:「這個女人確實存在」。不存在的印象僅僅是陰謀大他者展現的欺騙的效果,就像「失蹤疑雲」中的那群陰謀黨徒,設法欺騙主角接受失蹤的女人從未存在過

 

    The lady who vanishes is thus ultimately the woman with whom the sexual relationship would be possible, the elusive shadow of a Woman who would not be just another woman; which is why the disappearance of this woman is a means by which filmic romance takes cognizance of the fact that “ The Woman does not exist” and that there is, therefore, no sexual relationship. Joseph mankiewicz’s classic Hollywood melodrama A Letter to Three Wives, also a story of a lady who vanishes, presents this impossibility of the sexual relationship in another, more with one of their husbands. refined way. The lady who vanishes, although never seen on screen, is here constantly present in the form of what Michel Chion called la voix accousmatique. The story is introduced by the off-screen voice of Attie Ross, a small town femme fataale: she has arranged for a letter to be delivered to three women taking a Sunday trip down the river. The letter informs them that on this very day while they are absent from town, she will run off with one of their husbands. During the trip, each of the three women recalls in a flashback the difficulties of her marriage; each of them fears that Attic has chosen precisely her husband to run off with, because to each of them Attie represents the ideal woman, a refined lady possessing that “ something” that the wife lacks, causing the marriage itself to seem less than perfect. The first wife is a nurse, an uneducated, simple-minded girl married to a rich man she met in the hospital; the second is a rather vulgar, professionally active woman, earning much more than her husband, a professor and writer; the third is a working-class parvenu, married, with no illusion of love, to a rich merchant, simply for the purpose of financial independence.” The result is of course a happy ending, but with an interesting undertone. It turns out that Attie planned to run off with the third woman’s husband, the rich merchant, who, however, at the last moment changes his mind, returns home, and confesses all to his wife. Although she could divorce him and obtain a substantial alimony, she forgives him, discovering that she loves him after all. The three couples are thus reunited at the end, the menace that seemed to threaten their marriages disappears. The happy ending is never pure, it always implies a kind of renuncation—an acceptance of the fact that the woman with whom we live is never Woman, that there is a permanent threat of disharmony, that any moment another woman might appear who will embody what seems to be lacking in the marital relation. What enables the happy ending, it, a return to the first woman, is precisely the experience that the Other woman “ does not exist,” that she is ultimately just a fantasy figure filling out the void of our relation with a woman. In other words, the happy ending is possible only with the first woman. If the hero were to decide for the Other Woman ( whose exemplary case is of course the femme fatale in film noir), he would necessarily pay for his choice by catastrophe, even by death. What we encounter here is the same paradox as that of the incest prohibition, ie, the prohibition of something that is already in itself impossible. The Other Woman is prohibited insofar as she “ does not exist”, she is mortally dangerous because of the ultimate discord between her fantasy figure and the “ the empirical” woman who, quite by chance, finds herself occupying this fantasy place. It is precisely this impossible relationship between the fantasy figure of the Othe Woman and the “ empirical” woman who finds herself elevated to this sublime place that is the subject of Hitchcock’s Vertigo.

 

失蹤的女人因此最後是性關係成為可能的女人,獨特的女人的捉摸不定的陰影。這就是為什麼女人的失蹤是一個工具,讓電影的浪漫情懷認識到女人不存在的事實,因此沒有性關係。曼奇維思的古典好萊塢的影劇「給三位妻子的一封信」,也是一個女人失蹤的故事,以另一個更微妙的方式,呈現性關係的不可能。失蹤的女人雖然始終沒有出現在銀幕上,卻是以米奇、齊安所謂的「影音特效」的方式,不斷地呈現。這個故事以小鎮的女殺手,阿提、阿提在螢幕外的聲音開導:她安排一封信送交給三個在星期天到河邊渡假的女人。她將跟其中一位的丈夫私奔。在旅行中,每一位女人都回憶中想起她們婚姻的困難。每一位都恐劇羅絲選擇要私奔的正是她們的丈夫。因為對於每一位女人,阿提代表理想的女人,擁有作為妻子所欠缺的高貴,使得婚姻的本身顯得不完美。第一位妻子是護士,未受過教育的純樸女人,嫁給她在醫院所認識的有錢人;第二位是相當粗俗,熱心事業的女強人,賺的錢比當教授及作家的丈夫還多。第三位是工人階級的暴發戶,嫁給一位有錢商人,卻對愛情沒有幻想,只是為了財政上的安全感。純真的普通女孩,事業心旺盛的女強人,狡猾的釣金龜婿者,三個介紹婚姻不和諧的方法,三個成為不適任妻子角色的方式。在這三個案例中,阿提、羅絲出現當著「另一種女人」,擁有她們所欠缺的:經驗、女性的嬌柔、財政的獨立。結局當然是皆大歡喜,但是帶有有趣的暗示。阿提計劃跟第三位女人的丈夫,那位富有的商人私奔,可是對方在最後一刻改變心意,回家跟妻子懺悔一切。雖然她可能跟它離婚,獲得可觀的贍養費,她原諒她,發現她畢竟是愛他的。這三對夫妻最後大團圓。似乎威脅他們婚姻的危險消失了。可是,這個影片的教訓似乎比外表看起來的還要曖昧。快樂的結局不是那麼單純,它暗示一種拒絕,接受這個事實:我們相處的女人永遠不是女人。不和諧的威脅永遠是存在著,隨時會有大她者的女人出現,顯示我們在婚姻中所欠缺的。皆大歡喜之所以可能(例如第一位女人的丈夫的悔悟),準確地就是經驗倒:大她者的女人並不存在,她只是填補我們跟女人關係空無的幻想。換句話說,快樂結局只有跟第一個女人才有可能。假如主角要決定跟另一個女人私奔(作為典範的案例就是黑色電影中的女殺手),他將必須以災難,甚至是死亡作為代價。我們在此所遇到的是跟亂倫禁忌的矛盾相同,也就是不可能的愛的禁忌。大他者的女人被禁忌,因為她並不存在。她注定是危險的,因為她幻想中的人物跟「實際的」女人卻佔據這個幻想的位置,最終是格格不入。就是大她者女人的幻想人物跟「實際的」女人卻發現自己提升到這個崇高的地位,這種不可能的關係就是希區考克「迷情記」的主體

 

   

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: