Lacan 501

Function and field of speech and language

言說與語言的功用及其領域

The Hollow Men

空洞的人

The third paradox of the relation of language to speech is that of the subject who loses
his meaning in the objectifications of discourse. However metaphysical its definition
may appear, we cannot ignore its presence in the foreground of our experience. For
here is the most profound alienation of the subject in our scientific civilization, and it
is this alienation that we encounter first of all when the subject begins to talk to us
about himself: hence, in order to resolve it entirely, analysis should be conducted to
the limits of wisdom.

語言與言說的關係的第三個矛盾是，主體在論述真理形成客觀化之時，失去了
他自身的意義。這個定義無論如何形上抽象，我們不能忽視它存在於我們精神分
析的現場，因為這裡所發生的是，主體在我們科學文明所形成的最深刻的疏離。
當主體開始跟我們談到他自己，我們首先遭遇到就是這個疏離。因此，為了要徹
底解決這個疏離，精神分析的運用，應該將智慧發揮到極限。

To give an exemplary formulation of this, I could not find a more pertinent terrain
than the usage of common speech—pointing out that the ‘ ce suis-je’ of the time of
villon has become reversed in the ‘ e’est moi’ of modern man.

要為這個說明舉個例子，最貼切的場域莫過於日常共同言說的使用：法蘭科斯、
維隆對於聖經開始的時間的描述：「我就是這個樣子」，在現代人身上，被倒轉
成「這個樣子就是我」。

The moi, the ego, of modern man, as I have indicated elsewhere, has taken on its form
in the dicalectical impasse of the belle ame who does not recognize his very own
raison d’etre in the disorder that he denounces in the world.

現代人的自我，我在別的地方說過，在「迷失的旋律」抒情曲歌詞中，所形成的
辯證的僵局的處境：作者一邊抨擊世界的混亂，一邊在世界的混亂中，他無法
認出真正自我。

But a way out is offered to the subject for the resolution of that impasse when his

1
discourse is delusional. Communication can be validly established for him in the
common task of science and the posts that it commands in our universal civilization;
this communication will be effective within the enormous objectification constituted
by that science, and it will enable him to forget his subjectivity. He will make an
effective contribution to the common task in his daily work and will be able to furnish
his leisure time with all the pleasures of profuse culture which, from detective novels
to historical memoirs, from educational lectures to the orthopaedics of group
relations, will give him the wherewithal to forget his own existence and his death, at
the same time to misconstrue the particular meaning of his life in false
communication.

但是有一個方法可供給主體解決這個僵局，那就是將他的真理論述當成是海市
蜃樓般的幻覺。在科學的共同工作，及在我們環球的文明，它要求的職位上，他
能夠有效地建立溝通。在那個科學所組成的巨大客觀化範圍之內，這個溝通將會
是有效。這將會使他能夠忘掉自己的主觀性。對於他的日常工作中有關共同的部
份，他將會有效地貢獻，並且將能夠以大量的通俗文化，打發他的空閒時間，
從偵探小說，到傳記回憶錄，從有關教育的演講，到群體關係的彌補。這些將會
給他必要的資源，渾然忘記他自己的存在，甚至忘記他有朝一日終將死亡的事
實。同時，他會用虛假的溝通，曲解他的生命的特別的意義。

If the subject did not rediscover in a regression—often pushed right back to the
‘mirror stage’—the enclosure of a stage in which his ego contains its imaginary
exploits, there would hardly any assignable limits to the credulity to which he must
succumb in that situation. And this is what makes our responsibility so formidable
when, along with the mythical manipulations of our doctrine, we bring him one more
opportunity to alienate himself, in the decomposed trinity of the ego, the supergo, and
the id, for example.

人作為生命的主體，時常被逼迫退轉到孩童的「鏡中影像階段」，顧影自憐。但
是在這種的退轉中，主體並沒有重新醒悟到，他的自我馳騁於想像界的那個舞
台，已經被封閉。在那種情境當中，假如主體還念念不忘那個舞台，執迷於自戀
的完美形象，那麼他的自戀內容的可信度，就會跟時代及現實完全脫節。這就是
為什麼我們精神分析的責任會變得如此重大。除了要發揮精神分析奧秘的信條，
我們還要帶給他再一次的機會，讓他疏離他自己，例如，將他的自我、超我、本
我的三位一體，予以解離。

Hence there is a language-barrier opposed to speech, and the precautions against

verbalism that are a theme of the discourse of the ‘ normal’ man in our culture merely

2
serve to reinforce its thickness.

因此，有一個語言的障礙，將主體的言說阻隔在對面。我們要預防，如何避免只
是坐而言，卻沒有起而行，在我們的文化中，便成為一個「正常人」的真理論述
的一個主題。問題是，我們越是小心翼翼，這個阻隔障礙的厚度越是被強化。

There might be some paint in measuring its thickness by the statistically determined
total of pounds of printed paper, miles of record grooves, and hours of radio
broadcasting that the said culture produces per head of population in the sectors A, B,
And C of its domain. This would be a fine research project for our cultural
organizations, and it would be seen that the question of language does not remain
entirely within the domain of the convolutions in which its use is reflected in the
individual .

我們將這個障礙的厚度測量一下，可能不無意義。例如用著作出版的印刷紙張的
總數量，演講發表的數英哩長的錄音帶，以及上電台及電視廣播節目的時數，
這些都可充當統計的數據。因為在上述的這個文化氛圍，它們會因此使每個人在
自己專業領域，被區分為甲等、乙等、或丙等考績的等級。假如我們的文化單位
願意，這將是一個很好的研究計畫。我們將會看到，語言的問題始終沒有完全保
持在這個範圍之內，因為語言的使用需要反映到個人身上

We are the hollow men

We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw, Alas!
And so on.

我們是空洞的人
我們是填塞的人
依偎在一起
腦袋填滿的是稻草，
嗚呼哀哉！
等等。

The resemblance between this situation and the alienation of madness, in so far
as the formula given above is authentic—that is, that here the subject is spoken
rather than speaking—obviously derives from the demand, presupposed by
psychoanalysis, for ‘ true’ speech. If this consequence, which pushes the

3
constituent paradoxes of what I am saying here to their limit, were to be turned
against the good sense of the psychoanalytic perspective, I would readily accept
the pertinence of this objection, but only to find my own position confirmed in it
—and this by a dialectical return in which there would be no shortage of
authorized go-fathers, beginning with Hegel’s denunciation of ‘ the philosophy of
the cranium’, and stopping only at Pascal’s warning, at the dawn of the
historical era of the ‘ego’ echoing in these terms: ‘Men are not necessarily mad
that it would be being mad by another kind of madness not to be mad’.

假如以上詩句的陳述是真誠的話，這個情境跟瘋狂時的疏離有幾分類似。換句話
說，作為「空洞的人」的主體，在這個時候，是被別人言說出來，而不是自己在
言說。顯而易見，若是自己在言說，那先決要件是要存有「真正」的言說。這是精
神分析學預設的一個命題：陳述語句要跟表達內容一致。自相矛盾的結果，若是
發揮到極點，被倒轉過來，反諷我們精神分析學的自以為的明智通達，何嘗不
是如此自相矛盾，我將會立刻接受，因為這個以其子之矛，攻子之盾的反駁是
一針見血地貼切：我自己的立場，也難逃這個矛盾的驗證。當然，這個邏輯若是
要往前輩先哲類推的話，不乏有無數的先例充當我們權威的教父，從黑格爾的
抨擊「頭蓋骨的哲學家」，到「自我」開始響徹雲霄的那個時代的初期，巴斯卡的
警告，依舊迴響在耳際：「人有需要如此的瘋狂，以致於我們需要另外一種瘋狂
的對照，才能避免於瘋狂嗎？」

This is not to say, however, that our culture pursues its course in the shadowy regions
beyond creative subjectivity. On the contrary, creative subjectivity has not ceased in
its struggle to renew the never-exhausted power of symbols in the human exchange
that brings them to the light of the day.

可是，這並不是說，我們的文化追求它的途徑，是在客觀性的陰影的領域，超
越了創造的主觀性。相反的，創造的主觀性並沒有停止它的奮鬥，它要復興象徵
符號生生不息的力量，讓人類得以流通使用，帶來啟明的曙光。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
springherohsiung@gmail.com