拉岡講座228

THE DECONSTRUCTION OF THE DRIVE

驅力的解構

I ended my last talk by pointing out the place where I had taken you with the topological
schematization of a certain division, and of a perimeter involuted upon which is that constituted
by what is usually called, quite incorrectly, the analytic situation.

結束上一次的談話時，我曾指出，我引導你們到達某個區分的地形基型，某個一般被誤稱的精
神分析領域的範圍。

This topology is intended to give you some notion of the location of the point of disjuncture and
conjuncture, of union and frontier, that can be occupied only by the desire of the analyst.

這個地形基型是用來讓你們了解，精神分析師的欲望，所盤據的位置，何處是分裂及結合，何
處是統一及邊陲。

To go further, to show you how this mapping is necessitated by all the deviations, of concept and of
practice, that a long experience of analysis and of its doctrinal statements enables one to accumulate, I
must—for those who have not been able, for purely practical reasons, to follow my earlier seminars—
put forward the fourth concept that I have proposed as essential to the analytic experience—that of
drive.

在我先前幾次的演講，有些人由於沒有進入狀況，聽得不甚了然。我進一步澄清一下，這個地形
基型所以成為必要，是因為精神分析的經驗及原理，長久以來，累積的觀念與做法有許多變遷。
我還必須提出，精神分析經驗有非常重要的第四個觀念：驅力的觀念。

I
I can only write this introduction—this Einjuihrung, to use Freud's term—in the wake of Freud, in so
far as this notion is absolutely new in Freud.

我只能追隨佛洛伊德之後，替「驅力」這個術語做個導引。佛洛伊德的選用這術語，確實是匠心獨
具。

The term Trieb certainly has a long history, not only in psychology or in physiology, but in physics
itself and, of course, it is no accident that Freud chose this term. But he gave to Trieb so specific a use,
and Trieb is so integrated into analytic practice itself; that its past is truly concealed. Just as the past

1
of the term unconscious weights on the use of the term in analytic theory—so, as far as Trieb is
concerned, everyone uses it as a designation of a sort of radical given of our experience.

驅力這個術語有漫長的歷史淵源，不但在心理學或在生理學，而且在物理學本身。當然，佛洛伊
德選用這個術語，並非偶然。他指定驅力一個明確的用途。驅力被合併到精神分析工作的本身後
它原先的意義隱而不見。正如無意識的原先意義，應用到精神分析理論時，還是隱隱若現，就驅
力而言，大家使用時，還是會望文生義，意味著精神分析經驗的長驅直入。

Sometimes, people even go so far as to invoke it against my doctrine of the unconscious, which they
see as some kind of intellectualization—if they knew what I think of intelligence, they would certainly
retract this criticism—as if I were ignoring what any analyst knows from experience, namely the
domain of the drive.

有時候，人們甚至用「驅力」，來我跟我主張的無意識的原理分庭抗禮，好像我對精神分析師知
道的這個經驗一無所知，換言之，驅力的領域。他們甚至將無意識，看著是某種的知性主義，其
實他們若是瞭解我對於知性的看法，他們一定會撤銷對我的這種批評。

We will meet in experience something that has an irrepressible character even through repressions—
indeed, if repression there must be, it is because there is something beyond that is pressing in. There is
no need to go further in an adult analysis; one has only to be a child therapist to know the element that
constitutes the clinical weight of each of the cases we have to deal with, namely, the drive. There seems
to be here, therefore, a reference to some ultimate given, something archaic, primal. Such a recourse,
which my teaching invites you to renounce if you are to understand the unconscious, seems inevitable
here.

在生活經驗中，我們常遇到某件具有無法壓抑，也壓抑不住的東西。的確，假如有某件東西非壓
抑不可，那是因為有某個外來的力量一直逼進來。我們也無需到成年人的精神分析經驗，去找更
進一步的例子。任何小孩的心理治療師都會知道，在診所，我們所必須處理的每一個個案，組成
最大份量的因素，換言之，就是驅力。因此，這裡似乎牽涉到某件根本、原始、及蠻荒的東西。
這個東西，我曾要求你們暫時擱置，但假如你們想要了解無意識，訴諸於這樣的途徑，似乎是
無可避免的。

Now, is what we are dealing with in the drive essentially organic? Is it thus that we should interpret
what Freud says in a text belonging to Jenseis des Lustprinzips—that the drive, Trieb, represents the
Ausserung der Trag/zeit, some manifestation of inertia in the organic life? Is it a simple notion, which
might be completed with reference to some storing away of this inertia, namely, to fixation, Fixierung?
Not only do I not think so, but I think that a serious examination of Freud's elaboration of the notion of
drive runs counter to it.

2
現在，我們所正在處理的這個驅力，基本上是有機體嗎？因此，我們應該用屬於驅力的內涵，
來詮釋佛洛伊德的學說嗎？這個驅力，就代表在有機體的生命所展現的慣性力量嗎？ 它是一個
單純的觀念，只要用慣性力量的蓄勢待發，就可以自圓其說嗎？我不但不這樣認為，而且我認
為，假如我們仔細審察，佛洛伊德對驅力的詳細闡述，那恰恰相反。

Drive (pulsion) is not thrust (poussee). Trieb is not .Drang, if only for the following reason. In an
article written in 1915—that is, a year after the Einftihrung zum Narzissmus, you will see the
importance of this reminder soon—entitled Trieb und Triebschicksale—one should avoid translating it
by avatar. Triebwandlungen would be avatar, Schicksal is adventure, vicissitude— in this article, then,
Freud says that it is important to distinguish four terms in the drive: Drang, thrust; Quelle the source;
Objekt, the object; Ziel, the aim. Of course, such a list may seem a quite natural one. My purpose is to
prove to youthat the whole text was written to show us that it is not as natural as that.

驅力並不是衝動，欲念也不是性衝動，理由如下：在1915年，佛洛伊德發表一篇文章，題目是
「驅力與性欲望」。這篇文章發表於「自戀導論」之後的那一年，你們不久將會發現，我提醒年代，
是別有用意的。我們應該避免將 Trieb und Triebschicksale 翻譯成「神人思凡」。Triebwandlungen 才
是神人思凡， Schicksal 是冒險與刺激交加。在這篇文章，佛洛伊德說，區別有關「驅力」的四個
術語是很重要的：衝動、來源、目標、目的。當然，這樣一個名單可能似乎是一個很自然的名單。我
的目的是要對你們證明，他寫這篇文章，就是要告訴我們：這個名單並不是那麼自然。

First of all, it is essential to remember that Freud himself tells us at the beginning of this article that the
drive is a Grundbegriff, a fundamental concept. He adds, and in doing so shows himself to be a good
epistemologist, that, from the moment when he, Freud, introduced the drive into science, one was
faced with a choice between two possibilities—either this concept would be preserved, or it would be
rejected. It would be preserved if it functioned, as one would now say—I would say if it traced its way
in the real that it set out to penetrate.

首先，我們必須記住，在文章的開始，佛洛伊德自己告訴我們，驅力是一個基本原理。他補充說
我們從他補充的內容，可看出他是一位哲學的認識論者。他補充說，自從他介紹驅力的原理，到
精神分析這門科學，我們就面臨兩個可能的選擇：這個原理要就保存，要不然就捨棄。現在有人
會說，假如這個原理能夠自圓其說，自然就會被保存。我的說法是：假如它能在它準備要貫穿的
真實界領域自圓其說，它才會被保存。

This is the case with all the other Grundbegrzfe in the scientific domain. What we see emerging here in
Freud's mind are the fundamental concepts of physics. His masters in physiology are those who strive
to bring to realization, for example, the integration of physiology with the fundamental concepts of
modern physics, especially those connected with energy. How often, in the course of history, have the

3
notions of energy and force been taken up and used again upon an increasingly totalized reality!

在其它科學領域的驅力，道理也是一樣。佛洛伊德心目中所構想的，就是物理學的基本原理。他
的生理學的教授曾經設法讓他體會到，人的生理學跟夠用現代物理學的基本原理來解釋，特別
是那些跟精力有關的部份。從人類的知識史日趨完備的過程來看，精力跟力量的原理，曾經被廣
泛應用的次數，真是不知凡幾！

This is certainly what Freud foresaw. The progress of knowledge, he said, can beat no Starrheit, no
fascination with definitions. Somewhere else, he says that the drive belongs to our myths.

這確實是佛洛伊德的先知之明。他說，知識無論如何進步，都無法跳脫對於界定範疇，界定涵義
的迷戀。驅力被定義在別的地方，他說，驅力屬於我們人類的神話。

For my part, I will ignore this term myth—indeed, in the same text, in the first paragraph, Freud uses
the word konvention, convention, which is much closer to what we are talking about and to which I
would apply the Benthamite term, fiction, which I have mapped for my followers. This term, I should
say in passing, is much more preferable than that of model, which has been all too much abused. In any
case, model is never a Grundbegrzf, for, in a certain field, several models may function correlatively.
This is not the case for a Grundbegrzf, for a fundamental concept, nor for a fundamental fiction.

至於我，我將不用神話這個術語。的確，在同一篇文章，在第一段，佛洛伊德使用「想像成俗」一
詞。 這個詞比較靠近我們所正在談論的，以及我曾經跟大家提過的，功利主義者邊沁用的術語
「虛構」。容我再補充一下，這個術語比「典範」這個被用得浮濫的術語，更加受人喜愛。無論如何，
「典範」一詞從來不是一個基本的原理，因為在某一個領域，就會有好幾個典範彼此糾纏不清。假
如他們是出於一個基本的原理，即使是一個基本的虛構，就不會是這樣。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw