主體與他者

版權所有劉紀蕙

 

拉岡論語言、陽形符號、無意識的位置以及真理的問題

如果語言是囚禁我們之框架,我們要如何透過語言來理解主體位置的真相?拉岡會說,在語言中,「它」說話。從圖像的雙向併陳與曖昧性,以及主體的複雜主客互異的位置,我們其實靠近了所謂了主體的拓樸面,以及處於分隔線(edge)或是邊界(limit)的環節(knot, nodal point)。 不過,我們要先瞭解拉岡如何討論造成切割與分隔的符號體系,或是陽形符號。

1. 有關符號體系與陽形表記

拉岡以拓樸學的方式,說明主體的出現既牽涉了符號法則的確立,以及此主體無法出現而透過替代或是症狀出現的問題。這個「結」(knot)以及其雙向扣連的動態操作,就是拉岡所說的主體拓樸學。透過無意識的動力結構,主體中設置了一個使他得以建立認同的無意識位置(the instating in the subject of an unconscious position),而症狀,或是「結」,或是objet a,就是顯露切割與隱蔽的那個扣連雙向空間的切面。

拉岡強調,原始被遺忘之記憶的遺傳無法說明主體為何經驗到了閹割或是「法」的契約規範的問題。他認為,從佛洛伊德的論點中可以得知,主體與陽具 (phallus)之間的關係,就是有關「表記」(the signifier)的問題。這個表記不是現代語言學中的表記,而是指表記決定了可表記者如何透過其效果使自身屈服於一個標記,並依此模式而出現。拉岡說,不只是人說話,是透過人而「它」說話。

For the signifier plays an active role in determining the effects by which the signifiable appears to succumb to its mark, becoming, through that passion, the signified. The passion of the signifier thus becomes a new dimension of the human condition in that it is not only man who speaks, but in man and through man that it [ca] speaks; in that his nature becomes woven by effects in which the structure of the language of which he becomes the material can be refound; and in that the relation of speech thus resonates in him, beyond anything that could have been conceived of by the psychology of ideas. (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 578)

因此,對於拉岡而言,必須進一步了解的,不是被文化所制約的男女性別位置,而是要了解在另一場域進行的法則(in the laws that govern this other scene),而在此決定主體出現的雙重書寫中,既是組合又是替代的表記符號,combination and substitution, metonymy and metaphor, 有一種數學中所討論的拓樸模式的過程。

因此,所謂的陽具,或是陽形表記,phallus,是一個決定意義之效果的表記,代表了符號法則。

For the phallus is a signifier, a signifier whose function, in the intrasubjective economy of analysis, may lift the veil from the function it served in the mysteries. For it is the signifier that is destined to designate meaning effects as a whole, insofar as the signifier conditions them by its presence as signifier. (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 579)

在此符號法則中,由於人說話,所以人的需求(need)必須從屬於此符號法則的要求(demand)。人在說話的同時,已經進入了先存在的符號體系。後續的發展便是:這個無法完全說出而被異化的需求,衍伸出來而以欲望的形式向人展現──他的需求以異化的形式返回他自身。拉岡說,他所說的訊息是在大他者的場所發出的。這意味著人的所有發言都是在大他者的符號場域中進行。

[The effects of the presence of the phallus as signifier] include, first, a deviation of man’s needs due to the fact that he speaks: to the extent that his needs are subjected to demand, they come back to him in an alienated form. This is not the effect of his real dependence … , but rather of their being put into signifying form as such and of the fact that it is from the Other’s locus that his message is emitted. What is thus alienated in needs constitutes an Urverdrangung [primal repression], as it cannot, hypothetically, be articulated in demand; it nevertheless appears in an offshoot that presents itself in man as desire (das Begehren).? (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 579)

至於符號法則的要求,demand,早就構成此大他者的優勢位置──可以滿足也可以剝奪人的需求之權力。符號法則的要求,甚至可以透過愛的保證,而抹除所有需求的個別性差異。由於此無條件的要求,欲望便替代了那個絕對的條件而出現。因此,欲望其實不是胃口的滿足,也不是對於愛的要求,而是從對愛的要求中扣減胃口的滿足:這就是分裂。

For the unconditionality of demand, desire substitutes the “absolute” condition: this condition in fact dissolves the element in the proof of love that reels against the satisfaction of need. This is why desire is neither the appetite for satisfaction nor the demand for love, but the difference that results from the subtraction of the first from the second, the very phenomenon of their splitting (Spaltung). (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 580)

陽具,陽形符號,是一個被賦予優勢位置的表記,在此標記處結合了邏各斯與欲望的出現;也就是說,在表記處,欲望與法同時出現。

The phallus is the privileged signifier of this mark in which the role [part] of Logos is wedded to the advent of desire. (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 581)

但是,這也意味著在主體必須透過表記的隔離(veil)而出現,這個隔離,就是揚棄。主體在消失之時出現,主體揚棄自身而得以出現。

The phallus is the signifier of this very Aufhebung, which it inaugurates (initiates) by its disappearance. (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 581)

拉岡說,在古老的神話中,遮蓋物(veil)與羞恥之神(the demon of Scham)並存。只有遮蔽時,才能發生作用。因此,透過表記而設置的主體,必須經過分裂的過程:主體透過隔離(bar)才能夠出現,而且,原初壓抑而無法被完全說出的部分,只有透過表記才得以出現,也就是透過語言的壓抑作用而出現。

1. That the subject designates his being only by barring everything it signifies, as is seen in the fact that he wants to be loved for himself, a mirage that is not dispelled by simply pointing out that it is grammatical (since it abolishes discourse); 2. That the part of this being that is alive in the urverdrangt [primally repressed] finds its signifier by receiving the mark of the phallus’s Verdrangung [repression] (owing to which the unconscious is language). (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 581)

陽具提供欲望一個分配比例(理性)(the ratio [raison])的表記。表記同時是遮蓋物,也是分配,因此,表記過程便是分裂的活動,主體也因進入了表記活動而被分割。

The fact that the phallus is a signifier requires that it be in the place of the Other that the subject have access to it. But since this signifier is there only as veiled and as ratio [raison] of the Other’s desire, it is the Other’s desire as such that the subject is required to recognize—in other words, the other insofar as he himself is a subject divided by the signifying Spaltun. (“The Signification of the Phallus,” 582)

此處,我們看到了陽形表記作為一個標記,同時遮蔽也分配,而完成了主體的分裂。

2. 有關無意識的位置

拉岡所說的「在主體中設置一個使他得以建立認同的無意識位置」(the instating in the subject of an unconscious position),是什麼意思?當主體透過表記活動出現,發生了什麼過程?此過程所揚棄或是替代而出現的,是什麼?什麼是無意識位置?拉岡說,無意識就是主體構成之操作所留下之痕跡所建立的概念。

The unconscious is a concept founded on the trail [trace] left by that which operates to constitute the subject. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 703)

也就是說,在陽形符號的作用之下,無法完全被說出而進入了原初壓抑的材料,總會留下痕跡,也總會以另一種方式復返,所謂的欲望模式。原初過程與二度過程隨時在進行中,也隨時在受到現實環境改變而變化中。語言本身便是防衛機制。所謂的無意識,便在語言與行為中發生。

拉岡非常反對當時各種將無意識固定化,並將無意識作為意識形態的論點。
The presence of the unconscious, being situated in the locus of the Other, can be found in every discourse, in its enunciation. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 707)

拉岡強調,無意識在語言中發生,無意識在大他者之位置。強調無意識的固定本質或是固定空間,反而是一種延緩面對真相的抗拒。拉岡說,語言的效果便是將原因 (cause)引入主體之中。主體不是自身的原因,而是承受此原因帶來的分裂。主體的原因是表記,而此表記代表了他,也帶來了他的分裂。

The effect of language is to introduce the cause into the subject. Through this effect, he is not the cause of himself; he bears within himself the worm of the cause that splits him. For his cause is the signifier, without which there would be no subject in the real. But his subject is what the signifier represents, and the latter cannot represent anything except to another signifier: to which the subject who listens is thus reduced. One therefore does not speak to the subject. It speaks of him, and this is how he apprehends himself; he does so all the more necessarily in that, before he disappears as a subject beneath the signifier he becomes, due to the simple fact that it addresses him, he is absolutely nothing. But this nothing is sustained by his advent, now produced by the appeal made in the Other to the second signifier. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 708)

此處,拉岡說明了兩重運動的過程:第一個運動是主體透過表記出現也同時消隱,第二個運動是欲望的復返──透過被分裂之切割處復返。第一個過程是主體的認同作用,第二個則是無意識願望的固定化。這個第二度的遮蔽,拉岡說,這個「作偽證」(subornation)將主體的拓樸結構投射於幻想之中,而封閉了第一個運動的效果。此外,此過程也使得此欲望主體無法理解他自身是語言的效果,也就是說,他無從得知自身只是大他者的欲望的事實。

This secondary subornation not only closes the effect of the first by projecting the topology of the subject into the instant of fantasy; it seals it, refusing to allow the subject of desire to realize that he is an effect of speech, to realize, in other words, what he is in being but the Other’s desire. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 709) 拉岡指出,他要指出的,就是無意識的不可被固定,以及每一個主體的分裂都不同。

我們無法對無意識進行任何概論式的定義。但是,弔詭的是,主體化過程(subjectification)中的唯一共同處,Κοιν? (common) ,就是抗拒(resistance),此抗拒將自我的偽證據客體化,而不再接受任何其他的證據。這個抗拒,或是防衛機制,隨時會發生。他認為精神分析界以及其他心理治療、心理學等試圖賦予無意識某種固定的客觀意義,就是一種抗拒。拉岡所進行的,其實是「去本體化」(deontology)。他援引黑格爾在精神現象學中所討論的自我意識的形成,其實是要對立於過於明顯簡單的認同理論。

It will thus be understood that my sue of Hegel’s phenomenology bore no allegiance to his system, but was intended as an example with which to counter the obvious fact of identification.? …… It is by not avoiding the ethical implications of our praxis for deontology and scientific debate that the beautiful soul will be unmasked. The law of the heart, as I have said, is a bigger nuisance than paranoia. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 710)

他說,黑格爾的揚棄論點其實指出了永遠是「另一個的可能性」(always say something Other)。不過,對拉岡而言,此揚棄不是躍升,而是匱乏的具體化(the avatars of a lack)。 要如何才能夠理解這個被封閉的「它」(It)?拉岡說,要聽到洞穴之內的呼喚,要打開這個被封閉的洞穴,便需要以拓樸學的方式,透過形式上的裂隙,研究此分裂切割最無法還原之「邊緣」(edge),如此才可能捕捉其形式美學的邏輯。

The structure of what closes is, indeed, inscribed in a geometry in which space is reduced to a combinatory: it is what is called an “edge” in topology.
By formally studying the consequences of the irreducibility of the cut it makes, one could rework some of the most interesting functions between aesthetics and logic. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 711)

也就是說,拓樸學接合的綜合空間,讓我們看到出現於表記處的匱乏。 拉岡說,在主體與大寫他者之間,在透過無意識而假設的笛卡爾主體以及語言所確認為他者的大寫他者之間,就是此分裂切割的活動,就是無意識。

The subject, the Cartesian subject, is what is presupposed by the unconscious—I have shown that elsewhere.
The Other is the dimension required by the fact that speech affirms itself as truth.
The unconscious is, between the two of them, their cut in action. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 712)

3. 做為主體與大寫他者之間切割運動的無意識

前面所提到的兩重運動,就是拉岡所說的無意識的兩重切割作用過程,而這兩個過程有循環的關係:第一個過程是構成主體出現的異化作用(alienation);第二個過程是造成分裂主體的分離作用(separation)。 所謂的異化作用,並不是黑格爾所說的揚棄與躍升,而是主體透過表記向另外一個表記代表自己,而同時選擇放棄了二元項之一。拉岡以「或」(vel, or)來說明此二者之一的選擇。

The register of the signifier is instituted on the basis of the fact that a signifier represents a subject to another signifier.
……
This union is such that the vel of alienation, … imposes a choice between its terms only to eliminate one of them—always the same one regardless of one’s choice. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 713)

這個「或」,其實在邏輯上來說,是無法選擇的「與」(and):主體必須從屬於他必須接受或是必須將其固化的特定意義(the subject is subjected to the vel of a certain meaning hemust receive or petrification.)。透過這個表記的選擇,主體放棄了自己,但是也透過此表記而成為主體。 至於分離作用,拉岡指的是透過分離,而讓自己形成:seperation,separare, se parere, pars, engendering oneself. 拉岡說,這就是佛洛伊德所說的「主體的分裂」(Ichspaltung, the splitting of the subject)。自我分裂,為了要讓自己屈從於一個表記,主體因而透過重複,以轉喻metonomy的方式來攻擊並破壞此表義鍊。

Separare, se parare: in order to attribute to himself [se parer] the signifier to which he succumbs, the subject attacks the chain—that I have reduced to a binary, at its most elementary level—at its interval. The repeating interval, the most radical structure of the signifying chain, is the locus haunted by metonymy, the latter being the vehicle of desire (at least that is what I teach). (“Position of the Unconscious,” 715)

不過,在這個作為欲望載體的轉喻,主體放置了他的匱乏──他在大寫他者處製造了他自己的消隱,這是他從第一次異化時失去的部分。

What he will place there is his own lack, in the form of the lack he would (like to) produce in the Other through his own disappearance—the disappearance (which he has at hand, so to speak) of the part of himself he receives from his initial alienation. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 715)

此處,拉岡說,他所置入的匱乏,不是遭遇大寫他者處的匱乏,而是構成他自身的匱乏,由於此匱乏,他成為二元項。因此,分離代表著異化的復返。主體操作他自己的失落,而將他帶回到那個原初的分歧點。

But what he thus fills is not the lack [faille] he encounters in the Other, but rather, first of all, the lack that results from the constitutive loss of one of his parts, by which he turns out to be made of two parts. Therein lies the twist whereby separation represents the return of alienation. For the subject operates with his own loss, which brings him back to his point of departure. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 716)

這兩重運動,就是拉岡在討論陽形表記時所說的,人在說話的同時,已經進入了符號體系,也同時被異化。主體的需求無法被符號法則的要求所符合,透過表記,他經歷了原初壓抑;而透過轉喻,他經歷了主體的分裂,也讓欲望以匱乏的形式出現。
4. 如同薄膜般的力比多,以及主體的真相

拉岡說,主體不斷以辯證運動進行的活動,這個運動中的無意識作用,來自於如同薄膜 (lamella)般的力比多(libido), l’Hommelette,像是煎蛋,或是阿比巴蟲(amaeba),是一個不真實的器官(unreal organ)。力比多不斷以偽足變化自己領域的疆界。力比多是個力的場域,如同電磁場,是從內到外又從外到內的持續壓力。這個不斷運動而變動的薄膜,會朝向身體的極限展開:

Libido is the lamella that the organism’s being takes to its true limit, which goes further than the body’s limit. Its radical function in animals is materialized in a certain ethology by the sudden decline in an animal’s ability to intimidate other animals at the boundaries of its territory. (“Position of the Unconscious,” 718)

因此,我們看到,拉岡所指出的,是在話語中無法全然出現的主體,以及在大寫他者的語言結構中不斷以表記進行交換的活動。 那麼,主體的真相(truth)要如何得知呢?這個真相,可以如同科學知識一般,透過人文科學認知的欲望(epistemological drive),以真理的方式被界定? 拉岡指出,主體的真相只有透過objet a來獲得理解。 “Wo es war, soll Ich warden.” 在objet a之處,透過拓樸學式的雙重書寫(double inscriptions)中,我們可以掌握此分裂主體的真相。這個真相,就是無意識。

There is no such thing as a metalanguage (an assertion made so as to situate all of logical positivism), no language being able to say the truth about truth, since truth is grounded in the fact that truth speaks, and that it has no other means by which to become grounded. This is precisely why the unconscious, which tells the truth about truth, is structured like a language, and why I, in so teaching, tell the truth about Freud who knew how to let the truth—going by the name of the unconscious—speak. (“Science and Truth,” 737)

這個無意識,或是主體的真相,是無法透過科學而得知的。科學知識只能夠求共同之理,但是,真相是沒有任何實體的共同處。 For a truth that speaks has no-thing much [peu de chose] in common with a noumenon that, for as long as pure reason can remember, has always kept its mouth shut. (“Science and Truth,” 737) 正如我們先前曾經討過的,每個主體的分裂都是不一樣的。遮掩物之下的demon of scham也是不同的。此處,拉岡說,正如靈媒或是乩童,他們所召喚的相關主體具有結構性的相關性,都以對應於陽形符號的scham出現。

Everyone knows that the readying [mise en etat] of the subject—the shamanizing subject—is essential here. Let us observe that the shaman, in the flesh, is part of nature, and that the operation’s correlative subject must hew himself from this corporeal medium. This mode of hewing [recoupement] is debarred from the subject of science. Only his structural correlatives in the operation are situable for him, but they are exactly situable. (“Science and Truth,” 739-740)

拉岡說,了解主體的真相,就是了解此陽形符號只不過是符號結構中指出主體的匱乏之處。 因此,回到了我們今天開始時所提到的圖像的問題。透過object a 的曖昧性,我們看到了主體的內在悖反或是主客位置互異:在欲望處,我們看到了匱乏;或是透過參與受虐與棄絕,我們看到了主體所參與的衝突agon。

 

延伸閱讀:拉岡的主體拓樸學