“編織者之另一秘密”－德希達與精神分析

The Other Secret of the Weaver-Derrida and Psychoanalysis

10.7065/MRPC.200605.0005

沈志中(Chi-Chung Shen)

德希達 ； 佛洛伊德 ； 解構 ； 精神分析 ； 抗拒 ； Derrida ； Freud ； Deconstruction ； Psychoanalysis ； Resistances

哲學與文化

33卷5期（2006 / 05 / 01）

5 - 18

繁體中文

一九九二年，德希達後遺地重新審視「解構」的歷史時，表示在早期曾以déconstruction這個早已存在的法文詞，同時翻譯兩個概念：海德格的Destruktion與佛洛伊德的Dissociation。藉此，他再度肯定解構與海德格以及佛洛伊德思想的債務關係，以及解構之於這兩人思想的轉向。 儘管表面上的相似與深層的繼承關係，解構終究「不是」精神分析。它是對精神分析之抗拒。但正是此種抗拒關係使得解構與精神分析之命運不可分地聯繫在一起。 德希達始終夢想著抗拒。他自問這個抗拒的夢是否如佛洛伊德所言也有一個臍？這個對於抗拒的夢想是否也遭遇一個不願解開的結點？在 〈抗拒〉一文中，德希達試圖去分析、去精神分析，對於哲學分析與精神分析之抗拒的這個夢想與糾結。如他所坦承，奇異地，德希達這些分析彷彿神似於一個「未竟的幾近自我分析」(quasi-auto-analyse manquée)。不難理解為何德希達稱此為「幾近自我分析」，因為對分析的抗拒，以及特別是對佛洛伊德精神分析英雄式的抗拒，成就了德希達解構工業的基礎。但為何是「未竟、未完成」的幾近自我分析？德希達的這些分析最終、分析到最後，是否也遭遇一個不解、不欲解開的臍？一個德希達所說之「編織者的另一秘密」？

In 1992, retroactively reexamining the history of ”deconstruction,” Derrida indicates that with déconstruction, an existent term in French, he has translated two concepts at one time: Heidegger's Destruktion and Freud's Dissociation. Thus he re-affirms the debts of deconstruction to Heidegger's and Freud's heritages, as well as its turn to them. Despite their apparent resemblance and profound relationship of heritage, ”deconstruction” is not psychoanalysis after all. It is resistance to psychoanalysis, but the very resistance inseparably binds their destiny together. Derrida has always dreamed of resistance. He asks himself whether this dream of resistance has a navel as Freud said. Dose this dream of resistance also encounter a tangle which cannot be unravelled? In his article 'Resistances', Derrida attempts to analyse and psychoanalyse the dream and the tangle of resistance to philosophical analysis and psychoanalysis. As he confesses, uncannily, his analysis seems a ”failed quasi-auto-analysis” (quasi-auto-analyse manquée). It is not difficult to understand why Derrida calls it ”quasi-self-analysis,” because its resistance to analysis, especially the heroic resistance to Freudian psychoanalysis, amounts to the foundation of Derridian deconstructive industry. Yet why is it ”unfinished, unaccomplished”? Does Derrida's analysis, at the end of analysis, also ends up encountering a tangle which cannot be unraveled, as what Derrida calls ”the other secret of the weaver”?

1. 陳玉雲(2013)。未來潛在：歷史檔案與身心記憶結構之間。中外文學，42(2)，19-63。
2. 姚智中(2016)。也許…… 解構的「倫理─政治」意涵。中外文學，45(4)，47-98。