拉岡講座229

Deconstruction of Drive
驅力的解構

2
Now let us ask ourselves what appears first when we look more closely at the four terms laid down by
Freud in relation to the drive. Let us say that these four terms cannot but appear disjointed.

現在讓我們自問：當我們更仔細觀看佛洛伊德提出的這四個術語，首先出現的是什麼？我們不
妨這樣說，這四個術語彼此各自獨立。

First, thrust will be identified with a mere tendency to discharge. This tendency is what is produced by
the fact of a stimulus, namely, the transmission of the accepted portion, at the level of the stimulus, of
the additional energy, the celebrated Qn quantity of the Entwurf. But, on this matter, Freud makes, at
the outset, a remark that has very far-reaching implications. Here, too, no doubt, there is stimulation,
excitation, to use the term Freud uses at this level, Reiz, excitation. But the Reic that is used when
speaking of drive is different from any stimulation coming from the outside world, it is an internal
Reiz. What does this mean?

首先，衝動並不等同於僅僅是發洩的傾向。這個傾向由刺激所產生。在刺激的層面上，現有部份
被轉移，額外的精力被轉移，那著名的「充沛精力」被轉移。但是對於此事，一開頭，佛洛伊德說
了一句影響深遠的話。在此，無疑地，刺激是存在、或佛洛伊德在這個層次所用的術語「興奮」存
在。但是談到驅力所使用的「興奮」，不同於來自外在世界的任何刺激，它是內在的「興奮」。
這是什麼意思？

In order to explicitate it, we have the notion of need, as it is manifested in the organism at several
levels and first of all at the level of hunger and thirst. This is what Freud seems to mean when he
distinguishes internal excitement from external excitement.

為了說明它，我們引用「需求」的觀念，因為它在好幾個層次的有機體顯示出來，尤其在饑餓與
渴望的層次。這似乎就是佛洛伊德的意思，當他區別內在的興奮跟外在的興奮。

Well! It has to be said that, at the very outset, Freud posits, quite categorically, that there is absolutely
no question in Trieb of the pressure of a need such as Hunger or Durst, thirst. What exactly does Freud
mean by Trieb? Is he referring to something whose agency is exercised at the level of the organism
in its totality? Does the real qua totality irrupt here? Are we concerned here with the living organism?

我們必須說，在開始的時候，佛洛伊德以分類的方式提出，無疑地，驅力是有諸如饑餓、渴望等

1
需求的壓力。佛洛伊德的「驅力」是什麼意思呢？他指的是有機體在整體的狀態下運作的代理嗎？
真實界的整體在此迸發出來嗎？在此，我們關心的是活生生的有機體嗎？

No. It is always a question quite specifically of the Freudian field itself, in the most undifferentiated
form that Freud gave it at the outset, which at this level, in the terms of the Skekh referred to above,
that of the kh, of the Real-Ich. The Real -Ich is conceived as supported, not by the organism as a whole,
but by the nervous system. It has the character of a planned, objectified subject. I am stressing the
surface characteristics of this field by treating it topologically, and in trying to show you how taking it
in the form of a surface responds to all the needs of its handling.

不，相當明確地，這個問題總是屬於佛洛伊德的自身領域，跟佛洛伊德一開頭所表達的形式沒
有什麼不同。在這個層次，用以上的所提到的描繪而言，就是「真實的我」的領域。這個「真實的
我」被構想為不是由有機體當著整體來支持，而是由神經系統來支持。他的特色是一個計劃好的
客體化的主體。我現在是用地形學方式，來強調這個領域的表面特徵，因為我設法顯示，表面的
形式的處理方式，如何回應它在處理過程的需求。

This point is essential for, when we examine it more closely, we shall see that the Triebreic is that by
which certain elements of this field are, says Freud, invested as drive. This investment places us on the
terrain of an energy—and not any energy—a potential energy, for—Freud articulated it in the most
pressing way—the characteristic of the drive is to be a konstante Irafi, a constant force. He cannot
conceive of it as a momentane Stosskraft.

這一點很重要。當我們更仔細地審察它，我們將會看出，Triebreic 就是這個領域的某些元素被認
為是驅力所集中的地方，如佛洛伊德所說。這個集中使我們位於精力的平台，不是任何精力，而
是潛在的精力。佛洛伊德聲嘶力竭地說，驅力的特性是要成為一個持續的力量。他無法構想它僅
當著是一時的衝動。

What is meant by momentane Stosskraft? About this word Moment, we already have the example of a
historical misunderstanding. During the siege of Paris in 1870, the Parisians made fun of
Bismarck'spsjc/zologiscke Moment. This phrase struck them as being absurdly funny, for, until fairly
recently, when they have had to get used to everything, the French have always been rather particular
about the correct use of words.

一時的衝動是什麼意思？關於衝動這個字，我們對它的誤解，歷史上有一個例子。在1870年，巴
黎遭到德國圍攻時，巴黎居民就開玩笑說，這是「俾斯麥鐵血宰相的一時衝動」。他們將這個詞語
當著是荒謬可笑，直到後來，他們接受德國佔領，也只好一語成籤地自食其果。從此，法國人對
於字詞的正確用法總是格外小心翼翼。

2
This quite new psychological moment struck them as being very funny indeed. All it meant was the
psychological factor. But this momentane Stosskraft is not perhaps to be taken quite in the sense of
factor, but rather in the sense of moment as used in the cinema. I think that this Stosskraft, or shock
force, is simply a reference to the life force, to kinetic energy. In the drive, there is no question of
kinetic energy; it is not a question of something that will be regulated with movement. The discharge in
question is of a quite different nature, and is on a quite different plane.

他們確實把這個一時衝動產生的心理影響，當著是荒謬可笑。它的反諷是心理的因素。但是「一時
衝動」也許不應該完全從因素的意義，而是要從電影常用的突然的動作來看。我認為這個「衝動」
或衝擊的力量，指的就是生命力量，生命的精力。可是，驅力的問題，並不就是生命的精力，也
不是動作的規範的某件東西。我們目前討論的這個驅力的發洩，性質完全不同，處於相當不同的
層面。

The constancy of the thrust forbids any assimilation of the drive to a biological function, which always
has a rhythm. The first thing Freud says about the drive is, if I may put it this way, that it has no day or
night, no spring or autumn, no rise and fall. It is a constant force. All the same, one must take account
of the texts, and also of experience.

衝動具有持續性，使得驅力無法僅僅是被限制於生物的功用，因為生物的功用總是有節奏間隔。
佛洛伊德提到有關驅力的第一件事是，容我這樣說，驅力沒有白天或夜晚，沒有春天或秋天，
沒有升起或下降。驅力是一個持續的力量。儘管如此，我們必須考慮到人作為主體的文本，以及
精神分析的經驗。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw