欢迎访问《文艺理论研究》，
文艺理论研究

文艺理论研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (4): 150-161.

• 西方文论与美学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

异（体）类的主体：幽灵学笼罩下的拉康

原元   

  1. 加利福尼亚州立大学（圣马库斯）文学与写作系
  • 出版日期:2018-09-25 发布日期:2018-10-22
  • 作者简介:原元，加利福尼亚州立大学（圣马库斯）文学与写作系教授。研究方向包括文化研究、批评理论、现代主义、后现代主义和多元文化文学。

The Subject qua Other: A Hauntological Spell on Lacan

Yuan Yuan   

  1. Literature and Writing Studies at California State University San Marcos
  • Online:2018-09-25 Published:2018-10-22
  • About author:Yuan Yuan is Professor of Literature and Writing Studies at California State University San Marcos. His researeh interests include cultural studies, critical theories, modernism, postmodernism, and multicultural literature.

PDF (PC)

176

摘要： 在拉康对主体的论述中，异体这一概念甚为突出，它不但性质含混，作用也颇有争议。因此，本文借德里达幽灵学的观念予以探讨。尽管拉康式的主体令人困惑，捉摸不定，却一直被不少学者称为“缺失性的主体”，其中代表人物有费尔曼、拉格伦-萨利文、威尔登、德里达、巴特勒等。本文针对这一广为接受的说法，从“异（体）类的主体”这一角度来思考拉康的主体概念，并认为无论是在想象界还是象征界，拉康的主体都不可避免地会和幽灵及镜像式的异体牵扯在一起，并被其剥夺独立性。镜像阶段不仅虚构了整一自我的视觉假象，还令镜像式主体被幽灵式异体所压制。同样，象征界的主体看似在两个方面（即能指链上的转喻和隐喻）受制于语言学意义上的异体，但这种能指法式使主体失去躯壳，而成为幽灵，最终沦入被剥夺、被移置和去中心的状态。作为后结构主义者的拉康与身为心理学家的（尤其是俄狄浦斯式的）拉康有所不同，本文亦作出谨慎区分。一般认为，被遮蔽的菲勒斯处于象征界中心地位，并占主导优势，故称之为“主控能指”和“超然所指”。以此便能证明，拉康的异体范畴不仅仅是由普通的“纯粹能指”或抽象的“空洞之词”所占居；相反，异体这一领域充斥着享有特权的“满载之词。”这些词源于（死去的）父亲，类似神圣经文。与过去的批评家不同，本文除了将语言视为一般性的异体，同时还一一揭示了一系列缠绕拉康无意识主体的异体幽灵：神谕式异体（父亲最后的话），幽灵式异体（亡父的幽灵），神圣异体（拜物菲勒斯）。有趣的是，拉康“异（体）类的主体”的本体论观点似乎消融于德里达提出的“幽灵似的主体”这一幽灵学理论之中。

关键词: 拉康, 德里达, 幽灵学, 幽灵, 异体

Abstract: This project interrogates the dubious nature and the polemic role of the other in Lacan's discourse of the subject by invoking Derrida's ideas of hauntology. The Lacanian subject, albeit baffling and elusive, has been consistently labeled as "the subject of lack" by almost all critics including Felman, Ragland-Sullivan, Wilden, Derrida, Butler, et al. Departing from this established position, I probe Lacan's subject in terms of the subject qua other; contesting that in both imaginary and symbolic orders his subject is inescapably meshed with and dispossessed by some spectral and/or specular other. The mirror stage not only fabricates an optic illusion of a total self, but also situates the specular subject as overtaken by a spectral other. Similarly, the symbolic subject appears to be under the spell of a linguistic other in a double signifying conjuration — metonymic substitution and metaphorical transfiguration — that disembodies the subject into a ghost, i. e., deprived, displaced, and decentered. Further, the essay discreetly sets apart the poststructuralist Lacan from the psychoanalyst, or particularly, the oedipalist Lacan. The symbolic order, as known, is centralized and dominated by the veiled phallus, "the master signifier" or "the transcendental signified." This attests that Lacan's locus of the other is more than merely inhabited by general "pure signifiers" or abstract "empty words;" on the contrary, the field of the other is replete with privileged "full words" from the (dead) father in terms of sacred scriptures. Aside from addressing language as a generic other (as so inclined by past critics), this project uncovers a series of phantom others that haunt Lacan's unconscious subject: the oracular other (the father's last words), the spectral other (the ghost of the dead father) , and the Holy Other ( the fetish Phallus). Intriguingly, the ontology of Lacan's subject qua other dissipates into a hauntology of Derrida's subject qua specter.

Key words: Lacan, Derrida, hauntology, spectral, other