一、

(隨性翻譯)建立秩序需要嘉年華倒轉:拋棄日常階級和規則的狂歡時刻,恣意而為的時刻。人們賦予這種狂歡某種神聖性,並說它是回復到人類的原初狀態,其實,這只是人們對自身疏離狀態進行一種回溯性的投射,在它喪失之前它並不存在。薩德宣稱,自中產階級的啟蒙年代之後,快樂喪失了它本身的神聖/逾越特徵,它被縮減為一種理性化的工具活動。A/H認為,薩德的偉大之處在於,他完全肯定了世俗的快樂,他拒絕了形上學的道德性,但也完全承認這是要付出代價的:把性慾活動給徹底地理智化、工具化、組織化,從中產生快樂。

【說明:A/H用薩德來批評康德,認為啟蒙的道德性淪喪,被薩德尖銳的反諷給戳破。啟蒙的道德是一種超我的道德,在嚴格的道德命令鞭笞中,偷偷地享受著快感。所謂的嘉年華倒轉,不是在日常秩序之外,它正是在日常秩序之中。施虐狂的行為是逾越transgression,但逾越不是恣意的瘋狂,而是一種高度有組織、有紀律、有計劃、有計算的理性行為。】

Adorno and Horkheimer locate in the long tradition of the orgiastic/ carnivalesque reversal of the established order: the moment when the hierarchical rules are suspended and ‘everything is permitted.’ The primordial recaptured by the sacred orgies is, of course, the retroactive projection of the human alienated state: it never existed prior to its loss. The point is that Sade announced the moment when, with the emergence of bourgeois Enlightenment, pleasure itself loses its sacred/ transgressive character and is reduced to a rationalized instrumental activity. That is to say, according to A/H, the greatness Sade is that, on behalf of full assertion of earthly pleasures, he not only rejects any metaphysical moralism, but also fully acknowledges the price one has to pay for it: the radical intellectualization/ instrumentalization/ regimentation of the (sexual) activity intended to bring pleasure. (Zizek, “Kant with (or against) Sade,” in The Zizek Reader, p.287)

二、

(隨性翻譯)巴赫汀為我們展示了,對法律進行週期性的逾越transgression,乃是內在於社會秩序之中,逾越是穩定法律的條件。(巴赫汀的錯誤在於,他將這些逾越呈現為一種理想化形象,默默地傳遞給某些進行私刑的黨派等,成為一種決定性的形式:「社會階級的嘉年華懸置」。)能使一個團體深深團結起來的,並不是他們認同於法律,並不是認同那些規定共同體的每日「正常」規則。而是認同於對法律的某種特定的逾越、認同於法律的懸置(用心理分析的術語,就是認同於特定形式的享受)。

【說明:這裡的法律是指父親的律法,支配的主流社會所公開宣稱的各種命令與規定。逾越transgression不僅沒有成功地顛覆掉這個父親的律法,反而發揮了緊貼在律法底層,秘密支撐著律法的功能。並且,逾越靠著對抗與支撐律法,讓自身的團體緊密地結合起來,成為一個逾越的共同體。】

As numerous analyses from Bakhtin onwards have shown, periodic transgressions of public law are inherent to the social order; they function as a condition of latter’s stability. (Bakhtin’s mistake was to present an idealized image of these ‘transgressions,’ while passing in silence over lynching parties, and so on, as the crucial form of the ‘carnivalesque suspension of social hierarchy.’) What ‘hold together’ a community most deeply is not so much identification with the Law that regulates the community’s ‘normal’ everyday circuit, but rather identification with a special form of transgression of the Law, of the Law’s suspension (in psychoanalytic terms, with a specific form of enjotment). (Zizek, The Metastases of Enjoymente, p.55)

三、

(隨性翻譯)權力和對抗深深地相互擁抱,有力地勾搭起來。沒有對抗就沒有權力(為了要能運作,權力需要某個X逃離它的掌握);沒有對抗就沒有權力(權力的核心是如此被構成的:被壓制的主體去對抗權力的掌握)。

Power and Resistance are effectively caught in a deadly mutual embrace: there is no Power without Resistance (in order to function, Power needs an X which eludes its grasp); there is no Resistance without Power (Power is already formative of that very kernel on behalf of which the oppressed subject resists the hold of Power).

規訓機制,當它致力於壓制和規定時,它驅動了一種狂野的增生:對性慾的每一次壓制,都會激發出新的性慾快感之形式。

【說明:權力壓制的力量,所帶來的是對抗的增生。俗話不是說嗎?上有政策,下有對策。但不只這樣,對抗的增生還會回過頭去,使得壓制的權力更加精進、更加高明。對抗還不是抵抗,對抗不僅幫助了權力,還有可能使自身變成權力。唯有抵抗,才能瓦解權力。對抗叫做逾越,抵抗叫做行動act。】

…disciplining mechanisms themselves set in motion a wild proliferation of what they endeavour to suppress and regulate: the very ‘repression’ of sexuality gives rise to new forms of sexual pleasure….

在性慾和控制性慾的規訓之間,發生了一種自我指涉的轉向:(禁慾的)告解的活動本身被性慾化,它自身產生了滿足感。「壓制的法律並沒有置身於它所壓制的那個性慾之外,而是,壓制的法律其自身的壓制到達了這樣的程度:壓制本身變成一種性慾活動。」

…self-referential turn in the relationship between sexuality and its disciplinatory control: the confessional activity itself become sexualized, give rise to a satisfaction of its own: ‘The repressive law is not external to the libido that it represses, but the repressive law represses to the extent that repression becomes a libidinal activity.’ (Zizek, The Ticklish Subject, p.252-254) 

    全站熱搜

    jsy66621 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()