創傷之“真實”：從見證的僵局到心理分析的突破

"The Real" of the Trauma: From the Impasse of Witness toward the Psychoanalytic Breaking through

蔣興儀(Hsing-Yi Chiang) ； 魏建國(Chien-Kuo Wei)

《政治與社會哲學評論》 27期 (2008/12) Pp. 167-210

https://doi.org/10.6523/168451532008120027004

摘要

奧許維茲並非不可再現的。倖存的主體要嘗試去再現它。藉由象徵的再現，作見證的主體必然在他的證詞中，與「真實」相遭逢。從大屠殺倖存下來的證人有兩種。一種是集中營裡的活死人，被稱為默斯林。他們是完全的證人，但他們拒絕給出證詞。我們不該為了滿足我們自身施虐的絕爽，而強迫他們打破沉默。另一種雖然是不完全的證人，但他們終其一生都不斷地給出證詞來為大屠殺作見證，本文以李維為例。在這兩種證人之間，拉岡的心理分析可以幫助我們了解：重點不只是要成功地作出見證，並且還要證明內在證詞的破碎，以此作為成功見證所需要的必然失敗。
李維的證詞不是基於客觀事實而作為歷史的指涉。更重要的是，他的證詞也不是服務於他自身的意義確定性，而作為主體的指意。不過，當李維的證詞既不指涉也不指意時，卻構成為幻象。他代替默斯林作見證並描述他們的極限情境，他因此而躲藏在所描述的場景之後，受虐地同化於此一場景。李維將自身置於冷漠與客觀的狀態，這正是他的羞愧之來源。要避免羞愧，拉岡的心理分析需要我們做的是：不要把我們的內在分裂排除或移置為眼前的可怕景觀。一旦證人的證詞不被驅邪為幻象時，證詞將隨著主體之分裂而破碎。破碎的證詞表示：證人不再作自我保護，而與「真實」有了創傷性遭逢。

關鍵字

拉岡 ； 紀傑克 ； 真實 ； 見證 ； 李維 ； 大屠殺 ； 創傷

並列摘要

Auschwitz is not nonrepresentable. As the survived witness, subject should try to represent it. To bear witness and symbolically represent it, subject necessarily encounters the Real in his testimony. There are two kinds of witnesses that survived the Holocaust. One of them is the so called Muslims who were the living dead in the camp. Although they are the truly complete witnesses, but they refuse to bear witness. Not satisfying our sadistic jouissance, we should not force them to break out their mutness and to speak. The other kind is the incomplete witnesses who in spite of their incompleteness still bear witness to the event all through life. This article focuses on Primo Levi as the example of these incomplete witnesses. Between these two kinds of witnesses, Lacanian psychoanalysis helps us understand thus：The point is not only to bear witness successfully, but also to testify the inner break of testimony as the required necessary failure.
Levi's testimony is not based on objective facts as the historical referents. More importantly, his act of bearing witness is not in the service of his certainty that reinforces the subjective significations. Without objective reference and incapable of subjective signification, Levi's testimony is enframed in the fantasy. On behalf of Muslim and narrating their extreme situation, Levi hides behind and masochistically identifies with the narrated scene. This is the origin of his shame that determines Levi's impassive and objective status. In order to get rid of shame, Lacanian psychoanalysis requires that we should not exclude our inner division and displace it as the terrifying spectacle before us. Witness's testimony is not delimited by the frame of fantasy and is broken. Broken testimony indicates that witness encounters the Real traumatically without protection.

並列關鍵字

Jacques Lacan ； Slavoj Žižek ； the real ； witness ； Primo Levi ； Holocaust ； trauma

參考文獻

Agamben, Giorgio(1999).Remnants of Auschwitz: the Witness and the Archive.New York:Zone Books.

Badiou, Alain,Peter Hallward. (trans.)(2001).Ethics: An Essay on the Understanding of Evil.London:Verso.

Boothby, Richard(1991).Death and Desire: Psychoanalytic Theory in Lacan`s Return to Freud.New York:Routledge.

Borch-Jacobsen, Mikkel,Brick Douglas. (trans)(1991).Lacan: the Absolute Master.Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press.

Derrida, Jacques,Thomas Dutoit,Outi Pasanen (eds.)(2005).Sovereignties In Question: The Poetics of Paul Celan.New York:Fordham University Press.