【作者】 刘昕亭；

【导师】 沈立岩；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 文艺学， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 本文围绕当代斯洛文尼亚哲学家、精神分析家、文化理论家斯拉沃热·齐泽克的著作展开研究,将齐泽克独树一帜的理论书写概括为缝合式批评,即种朝向具体普遍性的知识生产,一种试图抵达并解开当代政治困局的政治批评。缝合这个概念在20世纪60年代开始被拉康理论化,历经精神分析、电影研究、政治学等领域的扩展,在拉康、雅克·阿兰-米勒、丹尼尔·达扬、希斯、拉克劳等理论家的不断努力下,缝合打开了一个弹性而开阔的思考空间。在此基础上,齐泽克对缝合概念进行了更新,围绕着内部-外部、主体-客体、具体-普遍三个理论轴线,打破了后结构主义与解构主义的思想范式,重新回到对于普遍性问题的探讨,并对“后理论”告别批判理论成果的行为进行了回击。在此基础上,我将齐泽克的理论书写概括为“作为政治批评的缝合式批评”,通过使用幻象和小对形两个增补的能指,齐洋克缝合了拉康派精神分析的一个重要伤口(裂H),即实在-现实的对立,并在最后缝合的时刻,生产出全新的意识形态与主体理论。作为一种政治批评,处于自在状态的缝合式批评,导向的是对意识形态概念的捍卫以及理论内容的更新。齐泽克将当代思想格局概括为“后政治”,伴随着苏联社会主义阵营的解体、柏林墙的倒塌,意识形态之争已经不再必要,政治(政治的)讨论所意味的,仅仅是行得通的想法和史为良好的社会运行。齐洋克拒绝后意识形态所携带的犬儒理性,更新马克思的论述,提出今日世界的症结在于“人们清楚地知道自己的所作所为,却依然坦然为之”。在这一思想氛围和时代语境中,齐泽克捍卫意识形态概念的合法性,并通过为这个概念输入新的活力,重新赎回理论的政治维度。传统意识形态批评的问题就在于,它认为某一特殊群体通过伪装、欺骗,把自己的局部利益上升为普遍共同的利益,而意识形态批评的任务,就是把这个普遍性揭露为特定的运作,于是传统意识形态批评不得不陷入一个相当无力怪圈：他们总在解构,总在祛魅,人们依然坦然为之!针对传统意识形态批评拘(?)于一种揭秘、祛魅的逻辑,齐泽克大胆提出意识形态的秘密就是一无所有,而意识形态的有效运作正是要掩盖这个空无,把这个空无假装为有某物作为一个秘密存在,只是你们并不知道。在此一思想困局中,齐泽克将拉康“精神分析终结于认同征兆与穿越幻象”的论断,搬演到意识形态的战场上,拒绝德里达将马克思主义作为一种幽灵重新召回的理论路径,提出意识形态幻象不能轻易擦抹,因为我们全部的现实体验是倚重幻象建构的,更不能将作为病灶的征兆简单割除,因为主体的全部一致性与连续性是由征兆支撑的,正如拉康派精神分析师要引导病患去认同征兆一样,缝合式批评就是要暴露伤口,并且勇于承认世界已然构造完成却并不完美,主体是有限的存在且是一个失败的存在。正是在这一基础上,齐泽克转向了自为地生产,这就是再造主体,作为政治行动的主体,具有积极行动能力,能够改造客体世界与整个象征秩序的主体。齐泽克在主体和主体化之间做出了区分,借主体作为主体化,亦是质询过程的失败产物,提出“主体也是实体”,突出了主体作为一个永远不可能意指自身的空位存在。在这个意义上,齐泽克与各种后结构主义的主体版本拉开了距离,即主体的确是分裂的、流动的、高度不稳定的,但是这恰恰意味的是大他者即符号秩序是充满了裂隙、缺漏和空白的。如果说在自在阶段,缝合式批评所揭示的是,我们生存于其间的现实,我们现实的体验其实是一个趋利避害的幻象建构,那么在自为阶段,经由“主体即实体”的路径,齐泽克提出,主体的有限性意味的是客体世界的有限性,主体作为普遍性空白的存在是为了填补大他者的空白。齐泽克再造了一个作为空位、空白的主体,各种新的主体性(同性恋的、少数群体的)将被重新缝合上去,在这个过程中,主体经由死亡驱力的彻底否定性,在行动中彻底埋葬符号秩序,获得重生,并擘画新的未来,这就是齐泽克标举的行动的主体,并通过行动迈向了主体再造符号秩序的可能。在自在-自为阶段,缝合式批评抵达了一种新的知识生产,即具体的普遍性。齐泽克同意后结构主义的论断,我们不可能获得真正意义上的普遍性,普遍性必须在每一个具体的存在中得以意指。但是借由对拉克劳霸权概念的批判,齐泽克提出,每一种具体情境,其与普遍性的距离关系并不同一,每一个特殊性,固然可以在霸权争夺战中与其他特殊性竞争中脱颖而出成为普遍性,但是每一个特殊性并非具有均等的机会和相¨同的实力加入这个协商、斗争与谈判的过程巾。这就是齐泽克在霸权概念之外开拓缝合空间的原因所在——缝合代表的,正是特殊性与普遍性之间的直接短路,这就是齐泽克以他独树一帜的理论书写,所开拓的理论的未来。更多还原

【Abstract】 This paper is an attempt to make a thorough examination of Slavoj Zizek, Slovenian philosopher, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist, treating Zizek’s theoretical writings as a kind of suture criticism, a production of universal knowledge, and a political criticism that aims to reach and solve the contemporary political impasse.The concept of suture had been theorized by Lacan since1960s, and it had been adopted by various theorists such as Jacques Alain-miller, Daniel Dayan, Heath and Ernesto Laclau in fields of psychoanalysis, film studies, politics. As a result, this concept opens up a flexible and broad space for thinking. Engaging with the dialectical relation between interior-exterior, subject-object and concrete-universal, Zizek revolutionizes this concept and breaks down the thinking paradigm of post-structuralism and de-constructionism, and finally returns to the problematique of universality and counter-attacks Post Theory’s abandonment of critical theory. Have that said, I tend to generalize Zizek’s theoretical writings as "suture criticism as political analysis". With two complementary signifiers—fantasy and objet petit a—Zizek sutures a significant fracture in Lacan’s psychoanalysis, that is, the opposition between the real and reality, and at the moment of finishing, produces an entirely new ideology and theory of subject.As political criticism, suture criticism as being-in-itself leads to the defending of the concept of ideology and the recreation of theory. Zizek conceptualizes contemporary thinking as "post-political" in the sense that, as the collapse of Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall, the struggle of ideologies and political debates are no longer necessary, and what matters is practicable ideas and well-ordered society. But Zizek refuses to accept this cynical reason embodied in this post-ideology world, so he tries to revolutionize Marx’s narrative and points out that, the symptom of the world today is that "they know very well what they are doing, but still, they are doing it." Living in this thinking atmosphere and context, Zizek tries to maintain the legitimacy of the concept of ideology, and by reinventing this concept, returns to the political dimension of theory. The problem with traditional concept of ideology is that it holds that a certain group, by fabrication and cheating, make their partial interest universal, so the task of ideology criticism is to uncover this mechanism of universality. As a result, the traditional ideology criticism is trapped in a vicious circle:it is always deconstructing and de-enchanting, but still people are doing it. Considering that, Zizek boldly declares that the secret of ideology is nothingness, while the successful operation of ideology lies in the concealing of this nothingness, pretending that this nothingness is a secret that you can never find out. In spite of this conundrum, Zizek applies Lacan’s remark that "psychoanalysis ends with the identification with symptom and go through fantasy" to the field of ideology criticism, and rejects Derrida’s attempt to treat Marxism as a specter. He holds that ideology can never be erased easily, since all of our experience of reality is constructed by fantasy, and we can not get rid of symptom easily, either, because the coherence and continuity of subject is supported by symptom. Just like Lacanian psychoanalysts encouraging patients to identify with symptom, suture criticism is to reveal the wound and dare to admit that the world is finished constructing but imperfect, and the subject is a limited and failed existence.Based on that, Zizek turns to the task of reinventing subject, as subject of political action, capable of changing the objective world and the whole symbolic order. Zizek makes a distinction between subject and subjectivation. Subject results from the failure of interpellation, so Zizek points out that "subject is substance" emphasizing that subject is a void existence that can never signify itself. In this sense, Zizek distances himself from all post-structuralist versions of subject, which believes that the subject is fractured, fluid and highly instable, but it does nothing but reveals that Other—symbolic order—is fractured, incomplete and void. In the stage of being-in-itself, what suture criticism reveals is that the reality we are living in and experiencing is a fantansy construct for escape, while in the stage of being-for-itself, the limitedness of subject means the limitedness of the objective world, and as universal nothingness, the subject is to fill the void of Other. Zizek reinvents a subject of nothingness and void so that various subjectivities (of homosexual and minor ethnic) can be sutured, in which process, through the radical negativity of death drive, subject completely bury the symbolic order in actions, regain life and make plan for future. This is the subject that Zizek is calling for, and it will reinvent the symbolic order in actions.In the process of being-in-itself and being-for-itself, suture criticism realizes the production of new knowledge, i.e. the concrete university. Zizek agrees with post-structuralism’s judgment that we can never gain the real universality, and universality can only be maintained in concrete context. But via the criticism of Laclau’s concept of hegemony, Zizek remarks that there are more than one possibility of each concrete circumstance’s relation with universality, and each particularity, though can sublimated to be universality in the struggle for universality, is not equal to each other in the process of negotiation and struggle, as far as opportunity and power is concerned. This is why Zizek tries to open new space for suture criticism, and what suture stands for is the short circuit between particularity and universality. This is Zizek’s theoretical writing and the future of theory that he opens up.更多还原