When discerning the three clinical paradoxes between speech and language in his 1953 ‘Rome Discourse’, Lacan did not venture upon an alternative definition of the nosological category of perversion. Instead, he described the third paradox as ‘the subject who loses his meaning in the objectifications of discourse’, which opened a more metaphysical perspective on the antagonistic relationship between the subject (sujet) and the ego (moi). Lacan put the ‘disguises of perversion’ in the neurotic compartment—alongside the ‘talking arms of character’ and the ‘seals of self-punishment’—as ‘hermetic elements’ which the psychoanalytic exegesis can resolve (Lacan 1977e[1953]:70).
当拉康辨别处于言说与语言之间的这三种悖论时，他于他的1953年的“罗马辞说”，他并没有探测一个替代的定义，对于倒错的分类的范畴。代替的，他描述这第三个悖论，作为是“丧失他的意义于辞说的客体化的主体”，这个辞说展开一个更加形上学的观点，探讨主体与自我之间的敌意的关系。拉康将“倒错的伪装”，放置在神经症的分类。伴随着“人格的谈话的手臂”与“自我-惩罚的封印”—作为是“解释的元素”，精神分析的存在能够解决的“解释的元素”。
Lacan’s hesitation to qualify perversion as a discrete clinical structure permeated much of his work from the 1950s, and is rooted in the theoretical inconsistencies which troubled Freud in his pioneering psychoanalytic explorations of the topic. Using the concept of perversion in its then accepted medico-legal meaning of sexual phenomena precluding genital union and/or the involvement of two consenting adult human beings belonging to the opposite sex, Freud averred in his casestudy of Dora and in his ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’ that all psychoneurotics possess forceful, albeit repressed perverse tendencies, and that the sexual constitution of the child, owing to its being ruled by disorganized partial drives, is polymorphously perverse (Freud 1905d:231–232; 1905e [1901]:50).
拉康的犹豫，不愿将倒错的品质定为是混杂的临床结构。他的犹豫弥漫于他的许的著作里，从1950年代开始，并且根源于让弗洛伊德感到困扰的理论的不一致，在他开前锋的精神分析对这个议题的探索。弗洛伊德使用倒错的观念，在它当时被接受的医学与法律的意义，对于这些性的现象，预先包含性器官的结合与（或）两位同意的成年人的牵涉，他们属于不同的性别。弗洛伊德在他的个案研究“朵拉”，与“性学三论”，主张，所有的心理的神经症者拥有强迫性，虽然是压迫的倒错的倾向。小孩的性的体质，由于受的瓦解的部分冲动的统辖，呈现多种样体的倒错。
Consequently, the category of perversion was expanded to include children as well as adults, psychoneurotics as well as ‘genuine’ perverts, and Freud saw himself faced with the question as to what distinguishes true ‘positive perversion’ (perversion proper) from its false, ‘negative’ avatars. After having discarded the nature of the sexual behaviours and the contents of the fantasies, Freud eventually confided in the genuine pervert’s fixation on the sexual object and the perverse exclusiveness with regard to the sexual aim, processes which he attributed to an interaction of constitutional and accidental factors (Freud 1905d:162, 235–240). Of course, both fixation and exclusiveness are quantitative rather than qualitative criteria, which probably explains why Freud continued to look for more reliable distinctions between perversion and neurosis.
结果，倒错的范畴被扩大到包含小孩与成年人，心理神经症者与“真正”的倒错症者。弗洛伊德自己看见，当他面对这个问题：如何区别真正的“正面倒错者”（本体的倒错者）与虚假的“负面的”倒错者的天使下凡之间的差异。弗洛伊德抛弃性的行为的特性与幻见的内容之后，他最后坦白承认，在他论述真正的倒错者的固著于性的客体，与倒错者的排除，关于行的目的。他将这些过程归属于体质与意外的因素的互相作用。当然，两种固著与排除都是数量方面，而非是品质方面的标准。这可能解释为什么弗洛伊德继续寻找更可靠的区别，在倒错者与神经症者之间。
In ‘Fetishism’ (1927e), he launched the criterion of disavowal (Verleugnung) to explain how a male child develops into a fetishist. When confronted with the reality of sexual difference, the child disavows castration (the mother’s lack of a penis) by convincing himself that the mother does possess a penis. As a substitute for the painfully missed penis of the mother, the fetish serves to sustain this psychic reaction of disavowal and produces a split in the child’s ego, because it symbolizes both mental triumph and the inherent threat of castration. According to Freud (ibid.: 156–157), this split could also account for the fetishist’s ambiguous attitude vis-a-vis his objects.
在“论恋物癖”，弗洛伊德竖立起这个标准：不承认。为了解释一位男性的小孩为什么发展成为恋物癖者。当小孩面临性的差异的现实，小孩不承认被阉割（母亲的欠缺阴茎）。他说服自己：母亲并没有拥有阴茎。作为母亲的这个令人痛苦的丧失的阴茎，恋物癖被用来维持这个心灵的反应，并且产生小孩的自我的分裂。因为它象征精神的胜利与阉割的本质的威胁。依照弗洛伊德，这个分裂的小孩也能够解释恋物癖的模糊嗳昧的态度，当他面临他的客体时。
Although a proper qualitative criterion for (fetishistic) perversion, similar to that of repression in neurosis, Freud’s mechanism of disavowal proved as indiscriminate as the nature of the sexual behaviours and the contents of the fantasies. For shortly before his death, in ‘An Outline of Psycho-Analysis’ (1940a[1938]:204), he emphasized the possibility of a disavowal of castration in non-fetishistic subjects, that not only put the specificity of fetishism, but that of the entire category of perversion at risk.
虽然有关“恋物癖”的倒错症者的合适的品质的标准，类似神经症者的压抑的标准。弗洛伊德对于“不承认”的心理机制，作为是区别性行为的特性与幻见的内容。因为在他死亡之前不久，在“论精神分析的钢要”，他强调“不承认被阉割”的可能，在非-恋物癖的主体。那不但让恋物癖的特殊性，而且让倒错的整个的范畴的特殊性，陷于危险。
During the early 1950s, Lacan embraced the same definition of perversion as Freud, and embarked on an analogous project of differentiating between the polymorphous perversity of the child, the perverse sexuality of neurotics (and psychotics) and the psychic structure of genuine perverts.48 In Seminar I, he posited that the structure of perversion is characterized by the reduction of the (symbolic) register of intersubjective recognition to an imaginary relationship (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:221).
在1950年代早期，拉康接受跟弗洛伊德相同的对应倒错者的定义。他开始从事一个类似的计划，区别小孩的多重样态的倒错行为，神经症这（精神病者）的倒错的性行为，与真正的倒错症者的心理的结构。在第一研讨班，他提出假设：倒错症者的结构的特色，是减少互为主体性的体认的“象征”的铭记，减少成为想像的关系。
By this he meant that perverts try to reduce their partners to mere objects, to instruments or idols—short of seeking solace in idealized inanimate objects—whose only function is to satisfy their own desires, with the caveat that the positions within this relationship of submission/dominance can suddenly be reversed so that the original master becomes the slave and vice versa. To the degree that this observation ostensibly enabled Lacan to separate authentic perversion from sexual ‘phenomena which one calls perverted’ on the ‘plane of an exclusively playful execution’ (ibid.: 215), it did not stand the test of infantile sexuality.
他这样假设的意义是，倒错症者尝试减少他们的伴侣，甚至成为仅是客体，仅是工具与木偶。他并不是要被理念化的没有生物的客体里寻找安慰。这些客体的唯一的功能是满足他们自己的欲望。他们主张，这顺服与支配的这个关系之内的这些立场，能够突然地被倒转。这样，原初的主人变成奴隶，原初的奴隶变成主人。甚至，这个观察夸张地让拉康分开真正的倒错症者与我们所谓的倒错症者的性的“现象”，根据“专注的运作的执行的层面“。它并没有经得起婴孩的性的考验。
For in the same seminar Lacan admitted that ‘[I]f analytic theory has qualified as polymorphously perverse this or that mode or symptom in the child’s behaviour, it is in so far as perversion implies the dimension of imaginary intersubjectivity’ (ibid.: 217–218). Lacan returned to this issue in Seminar IV, in which he undertook a year-long theoretical analysis of the child’s pre-Oedipal, pre-genital object-relations, notably those that were being held to support its status of polymorphous perversity as an imaginary intersubjectivity. Here he defended the innovative idea that the pre-Oedipal relations between a child and its mother are not governed by imaginary intersubjectivity at all, because they are always already inhabited by the symbolic universe in which human beings function.
因为在相同的研讨班，拉康承认，假如精神分析理论已经给予特质，作为是多重样态的倒错症，小孩的行为的这种或那种模式，或症状，那是因为倒错症暗示着想像的互为主体性的维度。拉康回到这个议题，在第四研讨班。在那里，他从事一年之久的理论的分析小孩的前-伊狄浦斯，前-性器官的客体的关系。特别是那些人们，被认为是支持小孩的多重样态的倒错的地位，作为是想像的互为主体性。在此，他辩护这个创新的观念：小孩与母亲的前-伊狄浦斯的关系，根本就没有受到互为想像的互为主体性所统辖。因为他们总是准备已经被象征的宇宙所驻居。在那里，人能发挥功能。
To Lacan the primary mother-child relationship is not a pre-established, symbiotic bond, but an essentially heterogeneous sphere reigned by tension, conflict and misunderstanding on both sides.
对于拉康，这个原初的母亲与小孩的关系，并不是一个预先建立的象征的关系，而是基本上异质性的领域，受到两边的紧张，冲突，与误解的统辖。
Criticizing Balint’s conception of the primary motherchild interaction as a perfectly tuned, reciprocal exchange, Lacan claimed that mothers do not love (nurture, nurse and nourish) their children simply for the fact that they constitute their precious and vulnerable offspring, but also because the children present them with an additional source of satisfaction.49 Put differently, a mother loves her child not so much because she is acting upon a natural mother instinct, but because she unconsciously uses the child to cover up her symbolic lack of enjoyment and to obtain supplementary satisfaction in a carefree and selfish way. In Lacan’s terminology, there ‘is always in the mother, on the side of the child, the requirement of the phallus, which the child more or less symbolizes or realizes’ (Lacan 1994[1956–57]:56).
当拉康批评巴林特的观念：将原初的母亲与小孩的互动，作为是一个完美调适，互惠的交换。拉康宣称，母亲爱（滋养，看护，与养育）她们的小孩，并不仅是因为这个事实：他们形成他们珍贵而易受伤害的后代。而是因为小孩呈现给与她们额外的满足的来源。换句话说，母亲爱她的小孩，并不是因为她根据自然的母亲的本能採取行动，而是因为她无意识地使用小孩掩盖她的象征的欠缺快乐，并且为了获得补充的满足，用任意与自私的方式。用拉康的术语，在母亲身上，在小孩这边，总是有阳具的要求。小孩相当程度象征或体现阳具。
As far as the child itself is concerned, Lacan argued that it experiences a psychic crisis when it discovers that in order to secure the love of the mother more is required than simply ‘being there’, that in order to sustain her love it is not enough to offer oneself. The fact that the child is also ‘the phallus, as object of the desire of the mother …constitutes an insurmountable barrier for the satisfaction of the desire of the child, which is to be the exclusive object of the desire of the mother’ (Lacan 1998b[1957–58]:285–286).
就小孩自身而言，拉康主张，它经验到心灵的危机，当它发现，为了获得母亲的爱，它所需要的东西，不仅是“在那里”。为了维持她的爱，光是提供它自己是不足够的。小孩也是“阳具”，作为母亲的欲望的客体的这个事实，形成一个无法被克服的阻碍，对于小孩的欲望的满足。那就是要成为母亲的欲望的专注的客体。
The child can alleviate this conflict in two different ways (Lacan 1994 [1956–57]:81–86). On the one hand, it can try to maintain the satisfaction of its own desire (to be the exclusive object of the mother) by identifying with the phallus (the object of the desire of the mother), whereas on the other hand it can acknowledge the sociocultural exclusion of a fully satisfying relationship with the mother and its concurrent promise of a different, future fulfilment. In the former case the child endeavours to satisfy all of the mother’s desires, thus putting its relationship with the mother under the aegis of the imaginary, which entails unselfish interdependence and strict reciprocity; in the latter case, the child assimilates the symbolic convention of the prohibited relationship with the mother, accepts its desire to remain fundamentally unsatisfied and engages in a quest for substitute satisfactions.
小孩能够减轻这个冲突，用两个不同的方式。一方面，小孩能够尝试维持它自己的欲望的满足，（成为母亲的专注的客体），小孩认同阳具（母亲的欲望的客体）。另一方面，小孩能够承认社会与文化的排除，对于充分令人满意的关系，跟母亲与小孩同时的承诺给予不同的，未来的满足。在前者的情况，小孩努力满足所有的母亲的欲望，因此将它跟母亲的关系，放置在想像结的枢纽。这意味着，没有私心地互相依靠与严格的互惠。在后者的情况，小孩接受象征的传统：跟母亲具有禁止的关系。小孩接受它的欲望基本上始终不被满足，并且尝与追寻替换的满足。
Lacan argued that the former solution leads to fetishism, the ‘perversion of perversions’ (ibid.: 194), whereas the latter introduces the child into the structure of neurosis.50 Despite its appeal, this elaborate explanation of perversion proved as unsatisfactory as the previous one (of the reduction of the symbolic to an imaginary intersubjectivity), since it begged the question as to how perverts differ from psychotics, whom Lacan had also located outside the symbolic pact.
拉康主张，先前的关系导致恋物癖，“倒错症中的倒错”。后者则是介绍小孩进入神经症的结构。尽管它的诉求，这个复杂的倒错症的解释，证明同样不令人满意，跟先前的解释（将象征化简成为想像的互为主体性）。因为它闪躲这个问题, 关于倒错症者如何不同于精神病者。拉康也将精神病定位在象征的盟约的外面。
Neither did Lacan’s solution answer the question whether true perverts are any different from the multitude of neurotics and psychotics who display ‘perverse’ behaviours.51 Accounting for these neurotic and psychotic ‘perverse’ behaviours, Lacan often talked about ‘paradoxical perverse reactions’, perverse ‘paroxysms’, and passage a l’acte, conceding that they too rest upon a shortening of the symbolically regulated distance between the subject and his object of satisfaction, and that ill-advised analysts can easily induce these reductions unknowingly during the course of analytic treatment (ibid.: 81).52
拉康的解决也没有回答这个问题：真正的倒错症者是否不同于显示“倒错行为”的多数的神经症者与精神病者。当拉康解释这些神经症与精神病的“倒错”的行为时，他经常谈论关于“悖论的倒错症的反应，倒错症者的“麻痹”，与”行动的过程“。他承认，它们也依靠缩短被象征规范的距离，在主体与他的满足的客体之间的距离。那个并不恰当被劝告的精神分析家能够容易地引导出这些化简，不知不觉地，在精神分析的治疗的过程。
To resolve the issue of the separation between perversion and psychosis, Lacan returned to Freud’s 1919 essay ‘A Child is Being Beaten’, in order to proclaim that perversion, unlike psychosis, follows the fundamental pattern of the Oedipus complex:
为了解的倒错症者与精神病这之间分开的这个问题，拉康回到弗洛伊德1919年的论文“论小孩正在被打“，为了宣称：倒错症者，并不像精神病者，他们遵循伊狄浦斯情结的基本模式。
Perversion is usually considered to be a drive which has not been elaborated by the Oedipal, neurotic mechanism—a pure and simple survival, the persistence of an irreducible partial drive. Freud, on the contrary, in this primordial paper [‘A Child is Being Beaten’] and also in many other places, indicates sufficiently that no perverse structuring, no matter how primitive we suppose it to be…can be articulated without…the process, the organisation, the articulation of the Oedipus complex. (ibid.: 120–121)
倒错症通常被认为是一种还没有被伊狄浦斯，神经症的心理机制建构的冲动—一个纯粹而单纯的存活，无法被化简的部分的冲的的持续。相反地，在这篇原初的论文”小孩正在被打“，也在许多其他的场合，弗洛伊德充分地指示：每个倒错症的结构被表达时，无论我们认为它是多么的原始，总是会有伊狄浦斯情结的这个过程，这个组织，这个表达。
One year later, Lacan used almost exactly the same words to describe the Oedipal character of perversion, yet now also broaching the ensuing congruence of perversion and neurosis:
一年以后，拉康使用几乎完全相同的字词，来描述倒错症的伊狄浦斯的特性。可是，现在，他也转过倒错症与神经症的随后的协调。
In order to abandon the notion that perversion is purely and simply the emerging drive, that is to say the contrary of neurosis, one had to wait for the signal of the conductor, that is to say the moment when Freud wrote Ein Kind wird geschlagen…Perversion does not appear as the pure and simple manifestation of a drive, but it turns out to be related to a dialectical context which is as subtle, as composite, as rich in compromise, as ambiguous as a neurosis. (Lacan 1998b[1957–58]:230–231)
为了放弃这个观念：倒错症纯粹而单纯地是出现的冲动。换句话说，神经症的相反。我们必须等待行为者的讯息，也就是说，当弗洛伊德书写“性学三论”时，倒错症并没有出现，作为是冲动的纯粹而简单的证明。但是，倒错症结果证明跟辩证的内容息息相关。这个辩证内容跟神经症一样的微妙，一样组成，一样富有妥协，一样模糊嗳昧。
Later in the same seminar Lacan deployed the structural analogy between perversion and neurosis further by claiming that the neurotic mechanism of repression equally applies to perversion, ‘inasmuch as it presents itself also as a symptom and not as the pure and simple manifestation of an unconscious desire’ (ibid.: 336).53
后来，在相同的研讨班，拉康运用倒错症与神经症之间结构的类似。他宣称，压抑的神经症的心理机制，同样运用到倒错。因为它也呈现它自己，作为症状，而不是作为纯粹而单纯的展示无意识的欲望。
Having postulated this constitutive link between the structures of neurosis and perversion, Lacan’s subsequent move was to situate perversion with regard to the neurotic dynamics of jouissance, desire, object a and the fantasy.54 The groundwork for this new differentiation was done in Seminar VI, in which Lacan contended that ‘the fantasy [? a] marks every human passion with those traits which we call perverse’, although ‘in the perversion, the accent is on the object a, [whereas] the neurosis can be situated as having its accent on the other term of the fantasy, the ’ (1977a[1959]:14, 16).
当拉康提出这个结构性的关联，处于神经症与倒错症之间的结构之间。拉康的随后的行动就是定位倒错症，关于神经症的动力结构：欢爽，欲望，小客体，与幻见。作为这个新的差异的基础被完成，在第六研讨班。在那里，拉康主张，这个幻见标示每个人的激情，具有我们所谓的“倒错症”的特征。虽然在“倒错症，强调的是小客体。而神经症者则是被定位在将它的强调放在幻见的另外一个术语”。
Throughout the remainder of his career, Lacan employed this criterion of the fantasy as a tool to separate neurosis from perversion. In Seminar XI, for example, he stated that the structure of perversion is strictly speaking an inverted effect of the fantasy, because it ‘is the subject who determines himself as object, in his encounter with the division of subjectivity’ (Lacan 1977b[1964]:185).
在拉康事业的晚年，拉康运用幻见的这个标准，作为是分开神经症与倒错症的工具。譬如，在第十研讨班，他陈述：倒错症的结构严格来说，是这个幻见到倒转的影响。因为它是“决定他自己作为客体的主体，在他遭遇到主体的分裂时“。
Unfortunately, it is easier to pinpoint these references than to explain what they mean. The gist of Lacan’s argument seems to be contained in a passage from the 1960 text ‘The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire in the Freudian Unconscious’, in which he wrote: Perversion adds [to the privileged place of jouissance] a recuperation of the f that would scarcely appear as original, if it did not interest the Other as such in a very particular way. Only my formulation of the fantasy enables us to reveal that the subject here makes himself the instrument of the Other’s jouissance. It is all the more important …to grasp the relevance of this formula in the case of the neurotic, precisely because the neurotic falsifies it. (Lacan 1977k[1960]:320, translation modified)
不幸地，我们更加容易强调这些指称，胜过解释它们是什么意思。拉康的论点的要旨似乎能够被包括在1960年的文本的段落，“弗洛伊德的无意识，作为主体的颠覆与欲望的辩证法”。在那里，拉康写到：倒错症增添原先并没有出现的这个阳具的恢复，作为欢爽的具有特权的位置。假日它对大他者的本身，以一个特殊的方式。只有我对于幻见的说明让我们能够揭示，在此的主体让他自己成为是大他者的欢爽的工具。这是更加重要的，要理解这个公式的相关性，在神经症的个案，确实是因为神经症让它成为虚假。
If perverts pass through the Oedipus complex, as Lacan had learnt from Freud, then they must experience a loss of enjoyment (-f) in the same way as neurotics (obsessionals and hysterics) do. Like neurotics they must also set out to retrieve that lost jouissance, a project whose end result would comprise the restoration of subjective fullness. Therefore, the perverse recuperation of the f scarcely appears as original, because the same mechanism is valid for neurosis.
假如倒错症者通过伊狄浦斯情结，如同拉康从弗洛伊德学习到，那么他们必须经验阳具享乐的丧失，如同神经症者（妄想症者与癔症者）一样。就像神经症者，倒错症者也必须出发去重新复得那个丧失的享乐。这个计划的结果将会组成主体的充实的恢复。因此，倒错症者的恢复这个阳具的享乐，原先并没有出现。因为相同的心理机制，对于神经症者是有效的。
What does distinguish a pervert from a neurotic though, is the former’s peculiar involvement of the Other in the subjective process of the recuperation of the lost enjoyment. I have already explained that in Lacan’s idiom hysterical subjects try to come to terms with symbolic castration (the loss of enjoyment) by arousing and sustaining the desire of the Other. In a sense, hysterics derive satisfaction from making themselves desirable, but not enjoyable.
区别倒错症者与神经症者的东西，就是倒错症者的大他者特殊地牵涉到，这个丧失的享乐的这个恢复的主体的过程。我已经解释过，在拉康的术语，癔症的主体尝试要达成妥协，跟象征的阉割（享乐的丧失）。他召唤并且维持大他者的欲望。就某个意义言，癔症者获得满足，从让他们自己被欲望，但是不是被享乐。
When dealing with hysterics one often finds that they are extremely attractive but utterly unpalatable, which is exactly what they intend to achieve. For the hysteric, the enjoyment of the Other is what needs to be avoided at all costs. In a slightly different way, obsessionals try to overcome symbolic castration by neutralizing the desire of the Other.
当一个人处理癔症这时，我们经常发现，他们极端地迷人，但是完全令人乏味。这确实是他们想要获得的。对于癔症者，大他者的享乐就是需要被避免的东西，不计任何代价地。用稍微不同的方式，妄想症者尝试克服象征的阉割，凭借将大他者的欲望保持中立。
Obsessional neurotics derive satisfaction from an estrangement of/from the Other and perceive complete isolation as the most splendid of life achievements. However palatable obsessional neurotics may be, they do not really want to be desired, let alone enjoyed by others. Hence, despite their divergent strategies vis-a-vis the desire of the Other, both hysterics and obsessionals shun the Other’s jouissance. The worst thing that can happen to them is to become an object for the enjoyment of the Other.
妄想症的神经症者获得满足，从大他者的纠缠，并且感知完全的孤立，作为是最辉煌的成就。妄想症的神经症者无论多么讨人喜欢，他们并没有确实想要被欲望。更不用说想要被别人享乐。因此，尽管各式各样的策略，面临大他者的欲望时，癔症者与妄想症者逃避大他者的欢爽。他们身上发生的最糟糕的事情，是成为大他者的享乐的客体。
This is precisely where the perverse structure branches off.55 In Lacan’s view, perverts obtain satisfaction by ensuring the enjoyment of the Other, thereby transforming themselves into an ‘instrument of the Other’s jouissance’. Deriving satisfaction from conjuring up jouissance in the Other, the pervert’s strategy to annihilate the effect of castration involves neither taking things back from the Other (hysteria), nor minimizing the loss (obsessional neurosis), but creating an alternative symbolic order in which jouissance holds pride of place.
这确实就是倒错症者的结构分叉出来的地方。从拉康的观点，倒错症者获得满足，凭借遵循大他者的享乐，因此转化他们自己，成为“大他者的欢爽的工具”。当倒错症者获的满足，从召唤大他者身上的欢爽，倒错症者想要毁灭阉割的效果的策略，既没有牵涉到把东西从大他者那里要回来（癔症者），也没有忽视这个丧尸（妄想症神经症者）。代替地，倒错症者创造一个象征的秩序，让欢爽在那里拥有骄傲的地位。
The pervert transcends the neurotic opposition between jouissance and desire which results from the curtailing impact of the symbolic law, and builds jouissance into the very heart of the Other. In this way, the pervert literally perverts the neurotic law according to which ‘jouissance is forbidden to him who speaks as such’ (ibid.: 319), advocating instead a ‘discourse of the right to jouissance’ (Lacan 1989a[1962]:60). From an excluded, prohibited privilege in the neurotic’s economy, jouissance thus gains ascendancy in the pervert’s ideology as a formal universal principle which is applicable to everyone in every situation.56
倒错症者超越神经症者的对立于欢爽与欲望之间。这个欲望是因为缩短象征法则的影响所形成。倒错症者将欢爽建造进入大他者的核心。用这个方式，倒错症者实质上倒错神经症的法则。依照这个法则，欢爽被拒绝给予那些言说作为神经症者的人。代替地，倒错症者主张获得欢爽的权利的辞说。从一个在神经症者的生命活力，欢爽作为被排除，被禁止的特权。在倒错症者的意识形态，作为是正式的普世的原则，欢爽获得提升。这可运用到日常生活情况的每个人。
In Seminar XI Lacan designated this perverse solution as an inverted effect of the fantasy (Lacan 1977b[1964]:185). Normally, in neurosis, the fantasy contains images of utter bliss in the presence of perfectly adequate, obliging objects. The neurotic fantasy glorifies every imaginable, prohibited sexual activity (and much more), which is why it can be called ‘perverse’ in line with the aforementioned, classic definition of perversion.
在第11研讨班，拉康指明这个倒错的解决，作为是幻见的倒错的影响。正常来说，在神经症者，幻见包含完全幸福的各种意象，就在完全充足的讨人喜欢的客体的面前。神经症者的幻想推崇每个可以想像的，被禁止的性的活动，（不仅如此）。这就是为什么它会被称为是“倒错”，以符合前面提到的古典对于倒错症者的定义。
By contrast, the fantasy of the pervert is oriented towards pure and unblemished, yet deficient and disconcerted objects that are desperately in need of satisfaction. On the level of the fantasy, the pervert does not desire lascivious and voluptuous studs (or vixens), but ostensibly innocent, sexually deprived angels. The pervert’s fantasy is therefore paradoxically less ‘perverse’ than that of the neurotic, with the proviso that the pervert is keen to corrupt the cherished morality of the fantasized objects.
比较起来，倒错症者的幻见被定向，朝向纯粹而没有被污染，可是不足而且令人狼狈的客体。这些客体绝望地需要被满足。在幻见的层次，倒错症者并没有欲望那些猛男或浪女，而是夸张地于欲望纯真，性纯洁的天使。倒错症者的幻想因此悖论地并没有那么“倒错”，比起神经症者的倒错。但书是，倒错症者非常渴望败坏被幻见的客体的被怀抱的道德。
During the first decade of Lacan’s teachings, the original confusion between the polymorphous perversity of the child, the perverse activities of the neurotic and genuine perversion gradually evaporated, giving rise to the delineation of a separate perverse structure. The latter appeared less as a particular type of sexual behaviours, notably all those transcending the adult genital heterosexual standard, but more as a specific relationship between the subject, the object and the symbolic order.
在拉康的教学的前十年，这个原先的混淆，处于多重样态的小孩的倒错，神经症者与真正的倒错之间的原先的混淆逐渐消失，产生分开的倒错症的结构的描述。后者比较罕见出现，作为是特殊的性的行为，特别是那些超越成年人的性器官的异性的标准的性行为。代替地，它作为一个明确的关系，处于主体，客体与象征秩序之间。
None the less, it would also appear that the perverts’ construction of an alternative ‘law of enjoyment’ makes them especially prone to indulge in those sexual behaviours that are culturally prohibited. In other words, Lacan’s theory implies that perverse behaviours—defined as above—do not discriminate between neurotics, psychotics and perverts, although perverts are likely to find great comfort in those sexual behaviours that are forbidden by religious, moral or legal standards.57
表面看来，倒错症者的建构一个替换的“享乐的法则”，仍然让他们特别容易耽溺于那些性的行为，在文化方面被禁止的性的行为。换句话说，拉康的理论暗示着，倒错的行为—被定义如上—并没有区别神经症者，精神病者与倒错症者。虽然倒错症者很可能找到强烈的安慰，在那些性的行为，被宗教，道的，或法律的标准禁止的行为。
Compared to his numerous reflections on the analytic treatment of neurotics and psychotics, Lacan’s suggestions about how to work analytically with structurally perverse patients are extremely limited. Is it possible to diagnose perversion on the basis of the patient’s speech and transference? How do perverts relate to knowledge and truth? Are they affected by symptoms and if so, how do they experience them? What, if anything, drives a pervert towards an analyst and would he be approached as a supposed subject of knowing?
跟无数的反思比较起来，反思神经症者与精神病者的精神分析的治疗。拉康的建议是极端有限制的，关于如何在精神分析方面处理结构上说倒错的病人。这是可能的吗？我们诊断倒错症，根据病人的言说与移情的基础？倒错症者如何跟知识与真理扯上关联？他们受到症状的影响吗？假如是受到症状的影响，他们如何经验到这些症状？是什么驱使一位倒错症者朝向精神分析家？他愿意被接近，作为是被认为是知道的主体吗？
Can the analyst who is working with a pervert use the same techniques of interpretation and the same procedures for transference handling as those applicable with neurotics? These and other technical questions are largely left in abeyance. Some authors have insinuated that Lacan’s silence concerning the analytic treatment of perverse patients should not bother analysts too much, since perverts hardly ever come to see an analyst, either because they are perfectly happy with their objects and methods of sexual gratification, or because they are afraid that therapy will force them to relinquish parts of their enjoyment (Miller 1996a[1989]:309–310).
正在处理倒错症者的精神分析家，使用相同的解释的技术与相同处理移情的程序吗？跟运用到神经症者的处理移情的程序相同吗？这些以及其他的技术的问题主要都留置于欠缺当中。有些作者曾经嘲讽：拉康的沉默，关于精神分析的治疗倒错症者的病人，不应该让精神分析家太过于懊脑。因为倒错症者很少会前来跟精神分析家就诊。要就是因为他们对于他们的性的满足的客体与方法，非常快乐。要不就是因为他们害怕，治疗会强迫他们放弃部分他们的享乐。
It has also been advanced that those who do come are seldom interested in a proper analysis; they are rather looking for technical advice on how to carry on with some of their unlawful practices whilst keeping on the ‘right side’ of the law, which is but a surreptitious demand for extra enjoyment. In the light of these observations, the attention of Lacanian analysts has frequently shifted from the principles governing the analytic treatment of perverts towards the clinical management of so-called ‘perverse traits’ (fetishistic practices, homosexual object-choice, sadistic fantasies) in neurotic and psychotic patients.58
也曾经有人主张，那些前来精神分析家就诊的倒错症者，很少对于一个精神分析的本体感到興趣。相反地，他们正在寻求技术性的劝告，关于如何继续某些他们不合法的做法。另一方面，他们又继续遵守法律的“正确的这一边”。这仅是一种秘密的要求额外的享乐。从这些观察的观点，拉康派的精神分析家的注意力，经常地转换，从统辖倒错症者的精神分析的治疗，转换朝向临床的管理所谓的“倒错症的特征“（恋物癖的做法，同性恋的客体-选择，自虐狂的幻想），在神经症与精神病的病人身上。
However small the structurally perverse clientele of the analyst may be, it is definitely worth the effort to reopen the issue of how to direct the treatment and, perhaps more significantly, of how to diagnose perversion on the basis of speech and transference. Indeed, one can reasonably assume that some perverts, irrespective of their access to gratifying sexual objects within a self-styled symbolic order, may experience recurrent bouts of anxiety or depression that propel them into psychoanalytic treatment.59
虽然精神分析家的结构上属于倒错症的病人人数很少，这确实是值得这个努力，要重新展开这个议题：如何引导治疗，或是更加重要地，如何诊断倒错症，根据言说与移情的基础。的确，我们能合理地假设：某些的倒错症者，尽管他们接近令人满足的性的客体，在自己承认的象征的秩序里，他们可能经验到焦虑或沮丧的重复发作。因为焦虑与沮丧的重复发作驱使他们接受精神分析的治疗。
Examples of how perverse patients enter analysis, including technical and diagnostic guidelines for the practitioner, have been described in an illuminating fashion by Andre (1993). Zeroing in on the extraordinary nature of the pervert’s speech and transference, this Lacanian analyst contended:
倒错症的病人如何进入精神分析的例子，包括技术性与诊断的指导方针，对于执业分析家。这些例子被安德鲁描述，用启蒙的方式。当这位拉康派的精神分析家目标朝着探索倒错症者的言说与移情的特殊性质，他主张说：
Perversion is traceable as such within the transference. It manifests itself through a reversal of the relation with the Other and through a radical subversion of the position of the supposed subject of knowing …Hearing the pervert speak, it is impossible not to experience an impression of indecency; one always feels a bit violated by the pervert’s discourse…There is a perverse way of pronouncing the fantasy…[Perverts have] a tendency to display their fantasies, often by means of a provocation. (Andre 1993:53–54)
倒错症的本身能够被追踪到移情内部。倒错症展示它自己，通过跟大他者的关系的倒转，并且通过强烈的颠覆被认为知道的主体的位置。当我们听见倒错症者言说时，我们不可能经验不正当行为的表达。我们总是觉得倒错症者的辞说有点令人反感、、、有一种倒错的方式来宣告幻见。倒错症者拥有一个倾向，要展示他们的幻见，经常是凭借挑衅。
This fragment contains all the elements an analyst needs to diagnose a pervert. Unlike neurotics, perverts have no difficulty charting their sexual fantasies and seem to derive enjoyment from embarrassing, shocking or exciting the analyst with their kinky and sleazy details. This is what distinguishes them from the patients on whose stories Freud based his account of the fantasy in ‘A Child is Being Beaten’, because Freud’s patients expressed their masturbatory fantasies with hesitation, uncertainty, resistance, shame and guilt (Freud 1919e:179).
这个片段包含所有的元素，精神分析家需要这些元素来诊断倒错症者。不像神经症者，倒错症者并没有任何可困难，来描绘出性的幻想，并且似乎获得快乐，从让精神分析家感到尴尬，惊吓或興奋，用他们的古怪而卑下的细节。这就是区别他们跟那些病人不同的地方。那些病人的故事，弗洛伊德将它们的基础定制幻见的描述里，在“小孩正在被打”。因为弗洛伊德的病人表的他们的手淫式的幻想，用犹豫，不确定，抗拒，羞愧，与罪恶感。
In addition, perverts do not consult the analyst as a supposed subject of knowing, but as a supposed subject of enjoying, which means that they assume her to be infatuated with the same things as they themselves are, or desperately seeking the satisfaction which the analytic profession does not allow and which they themselves have on offer. As with everybody else, the pervert prompts the analyst to let go of her restrictive code and to become an ally, or at least to endorse the attractiveness of a life and law of enjoyment. Instead of addressing the analyst as a supposed subject of knowing, perverts present themselves as supposed subjects of knowing.
除外，倒错症者并没有就诊于精神分析家，作为是被认为是知道的主体。而是作为被认为是享乐的主体。这意味着，他们认为她是著迷于相同的事情，当他们自身正在或併命地寻求这个满足，精神分析的专业病没有容许的满足，他们自己必须提供追寻的满足。如何对应每一位其他的人，倒错症者激励精神分析家放开她的限制的符码，并且为了成为盟友，或至少认可享乐的生活与法则的吸引人。倒错症者并没有对著精神分析家谈论，作为是被认为的知道的主体。倒错症者呈现他们自己，作为被认为是知道的主体。
This perverse knowledge concerns the pathways to enjoyment and they will try to convince the analyst, whom they expect to be suffering from an obstinate reluctance to follow these pathways, of their universal value as royal roads to happiness.60
这个倒错症的知识关系到通往享乐的这些途径。这些途径将会说服精神分析家。他们期望精神分析家遭受痛苦，因为他们顽固地不愿意遵循这些途径，他们让精神分析家相信他们的普世的价值，作为是通往快乐的捷径。
Still, these diagnostic indications provide analysts with little guidance as to how they should conduct their clinical vehicle when the passenger happens to be a pervert. In one of his scarce outpourings on the analysis of perverts, and in sharp contrast to the patent complexity of the situation, Lacan maintained that perversion ‘is indeed something articulate, interpretable, analyzable, and on precisely the same level as neurosis’ (Lacan 1977a[1959]:16). Here he reiterated Freud’s conviction that ‘the positive perversions [perversion proper] are also accessible to psychoanalytic therapy’ (Freud 1905d:232).
可是，这些诊断的暗示并没有供应精神分析家多少的引导，关于他们应该如何运用他们的临床的工具，当来客恰好是一位倒错症者。拉康在一次颇为罕见地发现对于倒错症者的精神分析，并且跟这个情境的专业的复杂性，成强烈对比。拉康主张，倒错症者确实是某件表达清楚，可以解释，可以分析，跟神经症者确实处于相同的层面。在此，拉康重复弗洛伊德的信念：正面的倒错症者（倒错症本体），也可以接受精神分析的治疗。
Freud based his assertion on the idea that the fixation and regression to an infantile sexual tendency in the ‘positive perversions’ must also originate in a repression of mainstream sexual development, consistent with the central psychic mechanism in the neuroses. In Lacan’s reading of Freud this meant that perversion is rooted in the Oedipus complex or, in his own terminology, that the perverse individual succumbs to symbolic castration as much as the neurotic does, leading to the installation of divided subjectivity (), desire, fantasy and (lost) jouissance. Such being the case, Lacan’s point seemed to be that neurosis and perversion can indeed be analysed on the same (Oedipal) level.61
弗洛伊德将他的主张，以这个观念为基础：在“正面的倒错症者”的婴孩的性的倾向的固著与退行，也必须起源于主流的性的发展的退行。这个主流的性的发展，跟神经症者的中心的心灵的心理机制互相一致。当拉康阅读弗洛伊德时，这意味着，倒错症根源于伊狄浦斯情结。或者，用他自己的术语来说，倒错症的个人屈从于象征的阉割，跟神经症者一样。这导致的安置是：分裂的主体，0，欲望，幻想，与丧失的欢爽。情况既然是这样，拉康的重点似乎是，神经症与倒错症确实能够被分析，在相同的伊狄浦斯情结。
Nonetheless, the inverted effect of the fantasy in perversion, formalized as a ? , constitutes yet another major challenge for the analyst, because it somehow mirrors the analyst’s own position as Lacan conceived it at the end of the 1960s. For the discourse of the analyst which Lacan constructed in Seminar XVII (1991a[1969–70]) also has the analyst operating as an object a and the analysand functioning as a divided subject (, the analytic effect of hysterisation), which implies that there is a remarkable ‘structural analogy between the desire of the analyst and the desire of the pervert’ (Andre 1993:17).
可是，在倒错症的幻想的颠倒的影响，被成为正式，作为小客体a，它组成另外一个主要的挑战，对于精神分析家。因为它以某种方式反映出精神分析家自己的位置，依照拉康所构想它，在1960年代的末期。拉康在第17研讨班建构的精神分析家的辞说，也让精神分析家运作，作为一个小客体，而分析者则是充当分裂的主体的功能（让精神分析成为癔症的结果）。这暗示着，有一个明显的结构主义的类比，处于精神分析家的欲望与倒错症者的欲望之间的类比。
This formal congruence elicits at least two cardinal questions. First, what prevents the analyst from being an institutionalized pervert? How can we distinguish between the enduring dedication of the analyst and the quintessential commitment of the pervert? And second, assuming that there is a crucial difference between analysts and perverts, how can analysts intervene effectively when their patients represent an image of themselves? How can the non-perverse analyst work with a singularly analytic pervert?
这个正式的协调，至少引来两个主要的问题：首先，是什么阻止精神分析家不要成为一个被体制制约的倒错症者？我们如何区别精神分析家持久的奉献，与倒错症者的本质的奉献？其次，当精神分析家假设，在精神分析家与倒错症者之间存在着重大的差异，精神分析家如何有效地介入，当他们的病人代表他们自己的一个意象？这位非-倒错症的精神分析家，如何能够处理一位具有独异性精神分析的倒错症者？
These clinical issues, alongside those emerging from the analysis of neurotics and psychotics, will be elaborated in the following chapters of this book, dealing respectively with the position of the Lacanian analyst within the treatment, the strategies of transference handling and the tactics of analytic interpretation.
这些临床的问题，伴随着从神经症者与精神病者的精神分析一块出现的问题，将会被建构，在本书的以下的章节。它们各别地处理拉康学派的精神分析家的立场，在治疗的内部，处理移情的策略，以及精神分析解释的技巧。
雄伯译 email]32hsiung@pchome.com.tw http://springhero.wordpress.com
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
