齐泽克“快感”逻辑的起源

Logical Origin of Zizek's Jouissance

齐泽克认为,当人们尝试以不同(后)结构主义的批判理论来处理意识形态,并借此阐明嵌入象征秩序网络中的主体化过程时,这些意识形态的主体化分析总会堕入象征性认同或想象性认同的盲点。同时,齐氏认为拉康指出的"快感"概念却能让我们设想作为言语"自为地作工"的真实界动力——即弗洛伊德所说的(神经症的)症状的无意识主体化——才是意识形态批判真正的问题意识。这让意识形态批评从静态的想象性或象征性"误认"(meconnaisance)的桎皓中解放出来,并进入一种更为动态的描述中。但是,当齐泽克指责包括阿尔都塞(L. Althusser)在内的后结构主义者看不到"快感"的逻辑在意识形态分析中的主导地位,并同时要把拉康从后结构主义的阵营中区别出来时,拉康对"快感"这个概念的重视到底出于怎样的一套方法论?诚然,齐泽克也曾承认拉康有其结构主义的阶段,他以"无意识是大他者的言语"作为主体化过程的公式,并以此说明此时的拉康有其非常结构主义的一面,但他的结构却为"快感"的逻辑预留了衍生的空间;另一方面,齐泽克对拉康做黑格尔式阅读来解释"不一致性"的剩余"快感"(jouissance)逻辑,以展示欲望图谱的拉康精神分析如何真正超越(后)结构主义。

Zizek maintains that when people try to apply different post-structural criticism to ideologyand to embed the interpretation into symbolic order network in the subjectification, these subjectiveanalyses of ideology tend to fall into blind of symbolic identification or imaginary identification. AndZizek believes that Lacan’s “jouissance” concept enables us to suppose lingua as automatic drive inReal, e.g. unconscious subjectification of neurotic symptom mentioned by Freud. This is the key toideological criticism, which liberates ideological criticism from static imagination or symbolicmeconnaisance and ushers in a dynamic description. Zizek blamed post -structualists including L.Althusser for failing to see the dominance of jouissance in ideological analysis and tried to separateLacan from post-structualism. From what methodology did Lacan attach great importance to jouissance？Of course, Zizek once admitted that Lacan experienced structuralism. In this paper, I utilize Lacan’sstructuralism to clarify his theory on unconscious subject and subjectification, in which he employed “theunconscious is the Other discourse” as the formula of subjectification to demonstrate Lacan’s specialstructuralism, leaving a space for his jouissance. On the other hand, Zizek read Lacan in a Hegelian wayto explain the inconsistent surplus jouissance, revealing how Lacan’s desire-based psychoanalysis trulytranscends （post-） structuralism.