精神分析的侵凌性 3/4

A point, let it be said in passing, whose anthropological
implications cannot be too highly stressed. What concerns us here is the function that I shall call the pacifying function of the ego ideal, the connexion between its libidinal
normativity and a cultural normativity bound up from the dawn of history with the imago
of the father. Here, obviously, lies the import that Freud’s work, Totem and Taboo, still
retains, despite the mythical circularity that vitiates it, in so far as it derives from the
mythological event, the murder of the father, the subjective dimension that gives this
event meaning, namely, guilt.

让我们顺便提到,有一点,它具有人类学的暗示,无论如何强调也不过分。我们在此所关心的事情,是我所谓的自我理想具有安抚的功能,它的生命力比多的规范,与文化的规范之间的联结,自古以来,它就跟父亲的意象息息相关。在此,显而易见地,弗洛依德的著作「图腾与禁忌」的意义就在那里。尽管神秘的流通让它无效,因为它从神话事件得来,它依旧保留弑父 ,给予这个事件的意义的主体性维度,那就是罪恶感。

Freud shows us, in fact, that the need to participate, which neutralizes the conflict
inscribed after the murder in the situation of rivalry between the brothers, is the basis of
the identification with the paternal Totem. Thus the Oedipal identification is that by
which the subject transcends the aggressivity that is constitutive of the primary subjective
individuation. I have stressed elsewhere how it constitutes a step in the establishment of
that distance by which, with feelings like respect, is realized a whole affective
assumption of one’s neighbour.

实际上,弗洛依德跟我们显示,参与的必要让这个冲突中立,在兄弟之间的敌意的情况,弑父之后被铭记的冲突。这个参与的需要就是认同父亲的图腾的基础。因此,伊狄浦斯的认同是,主体超越作为原初的主体的个人主义的结构的侵凌性。我曾经在别处强调,它如何构成建立距离的步骤。凭借这个距离,对于邻居的情感的假设被实现,对于像尊敬这样的情感。

Only the anti-dialectical mentality of a culture which, in order to be dominated by
objectifying ends, tends to reduce all subjective activity to the being of the ego, can
justify the astonishment of a Van den Steinen when confronted by a Bororo who says:
‘I’m an ara.’

只有反对辩证的精神的文化,才会认为史坦因的惊奇是有道理,当他面对一位博罗罗人对他说:「我是鹦鹉」。这样的文化精神倾向于将主体性的活动,还原为自我的生命实存,为了要受到客体化的目的所支配。

And all the sociologists of ‘the primitive mind’ busy themselves around this
profession of identity, which, on reflexion, is no more surprising than declaring, ‘I’m a
doctor’ or ‘I’m a citizen of the French Republic’, and which certainly presents fewer
logical difficulties than the statement, ‘I’m a man’, which at most can mean no more
than, ‘I’m like he whom I recognize to be a man, and so recognize myself as being such.’
In the last resort, these various formulas are to be understood only in reference to the
truth of ‘I is an other’, an observation that is less astonishing to the intuition of the poet
than obvious to the gaze of the psychoanalyst.

所有探索「原始心灵」的社会学家,孜孜从事于研究这种认同的工作。仔细思维之下,博罗罗的人这种认同,并不足为奇,如同有人宣称「我是医生」,或是「我是法国共和国的公民」。这种认同的工作呈现的逻辑的困难,并不难理解,如同有人陈述:「我是一个人」。他的意思充其量仅是「我体认他是人,我是像他这样的人,所以我体认为自己是这样的人。」追根究底,这些不同的公式,仅是应该从「我是一位他者」的真理来理解。这样的观察,与其说是让诗人的直觉感到惊奇,不如说是让精神分析家的洞见显而易见。

Who, if not us, will question once more the objective status of this ‘I’, which a
historical evolution peculiar to our culture tends to confuse with the subject? This
anomaly should be manifested in its particular effects on every level of language, and
first and foremost in the grammatical subject of the first person in our languages, in the ‘I
love’ that hypostatizes the tendency of a subject who denies it. An impossible mirage in
linguistic forms among which the most ancient are to be found, and in which the subject
appears fundamentally in the position of being determinant or instrumental of action.

除了我们精神分析家,还有谁会再次质疑这个「我」的客体的地位?这是我们文化特有的历史的进化倾向于将「我」的客体地位跟主体混淆。在语言的每个层面,这种异常混淆应该会在它的特殊的影响里被展示出来。尤其重要的是,在我们的语言里,第一人称作为文法的主词。在否认它的主体的倾向被,认为是真实的「我爱」。在语言的各种形式里,这是一个不可能的幻象,即使是最古老的语言形式也能够被找到。在这些语言形式里,主体出现,基本上是从决定行动或作为工具的立场。

Let us leave aside the critique of all the abuses of the cogito ergo sum, and recall that,
in my experience, the ego represents the centre of all the resistances to the treatment of
symptoms.

让我们将「我思故我在」的各种浮滥使用的批判放置一旁,提醒一下,在我的精神分析经验里,自我代表所有的抗拒的核心,抗拒对于病征的治疗。

It was inevitable that analysis, after stressing the reintegration of the tendencies
excluded by the ego, in so far as they are subjacent to the symptoms that it tackled in the
first instance, and which were bound up for the most part with the failures of Oedipal
identification, should eventually discover the ‘moral’ dimension of the problem.

这是无可避免的,精神分析强调被自我排除的这些倾向的合并,因为它们迹近于它起初克服的病征。它们跟伊狄浦斯认同的失败,大部分都息息相关。精神分析最后发现这个难题的「道德」维度。

And, in a parallel fashion, there came to the forefront the role played by the aggressive
tendencies in the structure of the symptoms and of the personality, on the one hand, and,
on the other, all sorts of conceptions that stressed the value of the liberated libido, one of
the first of which can be attributed to French psychoanalysts under the register of
oblativity.

同样地,在前台至关紧要的事,一方面,是病征的结构与人格的结构里,侵凌性的倾向扮演的角色,。另一方面,是各种强调生命力比多被解放的价值的观念。前者有一项能够被归功于精神分析家,被铭记为「爱是牺牲」。

It is clear, in effect, that genital libido operates as a supersession, indeed a blind
supersession, of the individual in favour of the species, and that its sublimating effects in
the Oedipal crisis lie at the origin of the whole process of the cultural subordination of man.

显而易见,那些性器官的生命力比多运作作为一种牺牲的替代。的确,这是一种盲目的牺性替代,为了种族而牺牲个人。它在伊狄浦斯的危机里,具有升华的影响,作为人隶属于文化的整个过程的起源。

Nevertheless, one cannot stress too strongly the irreducible character of the
narcissistic structure, and the ambiguity of a notion that tends to ignore the constancy of
aggressive tension in all moral life that involves subjection to this structure: in fact no
notion of oblativity could produce altruism from that structure.

可是,我们无论如何也要强调,自恋结构具有无法化减的特性,以及在一切的道德生活里,
侵凌性紧张作为常态,倾向于受到忽视的观念的暧昧性。因为一切的道德生活都牵涉到隶属于这个结构。事实上,再多的「爱是牺牲」的观念,都无法从那个结构产生出利他主义。

And that is why La
Rochefoucauld could formulate his maxim, in which his rigour matches the fundamental
theme of this thought, on the incompatibility of marriage and sexual pleasure (délices).

那就是为什么罗歇福柯能够侃侃而谈他的道德箴言:婚姻与性的快乐彼此不和谐。在他的道德箴言里,他的一板正经跟他思想的基本主题,不相上下。

We would allow the sharpness of our experience to become blunted if we deluded
ourselves, if not our patients, into believing in some kind of pre-established harmony that
would free of all aggressive induction in the subject the social conformisms made
possible by the reduction of symptoms.

我们将会让我们精神分析的敏锐变得迟钝,假如我们欺骗自己,甚至欺骗我们的病人,让大家相信,有某种预先建立的和谐,会让适应社会机能者,解除主体身上的一切侵凌性的诱导,以及病征的减少能够让大家适应社会的机能。

And the theoreticians of the Middle Ages showed another kind of penetration, by
which the problem of love was discussed in terms of the two poles of a ‘physical’ theory
and an ‘ecstatic’ theory, each involving the re-absorption of man’s ego, whether by reintegration
into a universal good, or by the effusion of the subject towards an object
without alterity.

中世纪的理论家显示另外一种洞察力。他们用「生理」理论与「狂喜」理论的两个极端,来探讨爱的难题。每一个极端都牵涉到重新吸纳人的自我,无论是凭借重新融合于普遍性的善,或是凭借主体朝着没有他者的客体绽放。

This narcissistic moment in the subject is to be found in all the genetic phases of the
individual, in all the degrees of human accomplishment in the person, in an earlier stage
in which it must assume a libidinal frustration and a later stage in which it is transcended
in a normative sublimation.

主体身上的自恋时刻能够被找到,在个人的基因的部分,在各种程度的个人的人类的成就里。在这些成就的早期阶段,主体必须承受生命力比多的挫折;在个人的人类成就的后期阶段,主体以规范性的升华,作为提升到神性。

This conception allows us to understand the aggressivity involved in the effects of all
regression, all arrested development, all rejection of typical development in the subject,
especially on the plane of sexual realization, and more specifically with each of the great
phases that the libidinal transformations determine in human life, the crucial function of
which has been demonstrated by analysis: weaning, the Oedipal stage, puberty, maturity,
or motherhood, even the climacteric.

这个观念让我们能够理解,侵凌性牵涉到各种的主体身上倒退的效应,各种被阻碍的发展,各种典型发展的被排斥。特别是在性的实现的层面,更加明确的是,在人类生活里,受到生命力比多的转换决定的每个重要的时期。精神分析曾经展示出这些时期的关键功能:断奶,伊狄浦斯的阶段,成熟,或成为母亲,甚至更年期。

And I have often said that the emphasis that was
placed at first in psychoanalytic theory on the aggressive turning round of the Oedipal
conflict upon the subject’s own self was due to the fact that the effects of the complex
were first perceived in failures to resolve it.

我经常说过,精神分析理论起初强调,伊狄浦斯跟主体的自己的自我的冲突,会产生侵凌性的翻转,那是由于这个事实:伊狄浦斯情结的影响首先被感知,因为没有办法化解伊狄浦斯。

There is no need to emphasize that a coherent theory of the narcissistic phase clarifies
the fact of the ambivalence proper to the ‘partial drives’ of scoptophilia, sadomasochism,
and homosexuality, as well as the stereotyped, ceremonial formalism of the aggressivity
that is manifested in them: we are dealing here with the often very little ‘realized’ aspect
of the apprehension of others in the practice of certain of these perversions, their
subjective value, in actual fact very different from that given to them in the existential
reconstructions, striking though they be, of a Sartre.

我们没有需要强调,自恋时期的一贯理论澄清爱恨交加的这个事实:爱恨交加是窥视狂,虐待与自虐,以及同性恋的「部份冲突」的本体,以及他们身上展现的侵凌性,具有典型化,仪式化的形式主义。我们在此正在谈论的是,对于这些的变态行为,别人经常会有罕为人体会的焦虑。实际上,他们的主体的价值,相当不同于在萨特的存在主义的重新建构里被给予他们的主体的价值,尽管它们令人嘱目。

I should also like to mention in passing that the decisive function that we attribute to
the imago of one’s own body in the determination of the narcissistic phase enables us to
understand the clinical relation between the congenital anomalies of functional
lateralization (left-handedness) and all forms of inversion of sexual and cultural
normalization. This reminds one of the role attributed to gymnastics in the ‘beautiful and
good’ ideal of education among the Ancient Greeks and leads us to the social thesis with
which I will conclude.
我也想顺便提到,当我们决定自恋时期时,我们归属于自己身体的「形象」的决定性功能,让我们能够理解这个临床的关系,处于左脑与右脑的功能的协调异常(左手癖),以及各式各样的性与文化正常化的倒错。这让我们回想到,古代希腊人们,将美育与品德教育的理想,归属于体育扮演的角色。并且引导我们来到我将作为结论的社会的命题。

雄伯译
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
http://springhero.wordpress.ocm

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: