论三种艺术体制下弗洛伊德的过渡性定位问题

On the Transitional Position of Freud in Three Art Systems

摘要: 在精神分析话语中，无意识的重要性无疑占据了绝对地位。在弗洛伊德那里，正是以无意识的存在为前提构建了整个精神分析的路径。事实上无意识不仅被弗洛伊德应用于临床领域，还被其用来分析大量文学和艺术作品。在“无意识理论”的指导下，弗洛伊德对“俄狄浦斯”、“丽贝卡”、“摩西”等一系列形象进行了分析与阐释，并借此提出了著名的“俄狄浦斯情节”。我们可以看到在朗西埃多次论述审美无意识理论时提及弗洛伊德的例子，但是在这些例子中朗西埃对弗洛伊德的态度或是认可的或是批评的，赞同与反对相互交织，并非一种一以贯之的态度。对于这种矛盾的现象，本文试图将朗西埃所言的从无意识到诗学或再现的艺术体制再到美学体制视为一个具有递进性关系的理论，并认为正是在这种递进性关系中确证了弗洛伊德本人的过渡地位，即弗洛伊德对文本的分析经历了由无意识到诗学或再现的艺术体制再到美学体制，并在面对叔本华式虚无意志的审美无意识时最终退却下来，回到一种由艺术体制向美学体制的过渡状态，正是对其过渡性的定位导致了朗西埃的矛盾态度。此外本文进一步认为弗洛伊德本人这种过渡状态与定位一方面是由其医生和病理学家的身份所决定的，另一方面则是深受亚里士多德的影响。

Abstract: In Freudian psychoanalysis, the unconscious undeniably occupies a paramount position. It serves as the foundational premise upon which the entire framework of psychoanalytic methodology is constructed. Beyond clinical applications, Freud extended his unconscious theory to the interpretation of literary and artistic works, analyzing iconic figures such as “Oedipus”, “Rebecca”, and “Moses”. This theoretical framework culminated in his famous Oedipus complex thesis. We can observe that Rancière frequently cites Freud’s examples when discussing the theory of aesthetic unconsciousness. However, in these instances, Rancière’s attitude towards Freud is either approving or critical, with agreement and disagreement intertwined, rather than a consistent approach. In response to this contradictory phenomenon, this article attempts to view Rancière’s assertion of transitioning from the unconscious to poetics or representational art systems, and then to the aesthetic system, as a theory with a progressive relationship. It is believed that it is within this progressive relationship that Freud’s transitional status is confirmed. Specifically, Freud’s analysis of texts progresses from the unconscious to poetics or representational art systems, and then to the aesthetic system. When confronted with the aesthetic unconsciousness of Schopenhauerian nihilistic will, Freud ultimately retreats, returning to a transitional state from the art system to the aesthetic system. It is precisely this transitional positioning that leads to Rancière’s contradictory attitude. Furthermore, this article further posits that Freud’s own transitional state and positioning were determined, on the one hand, by his identity as a doctor and pathologist, and on the other hand, by his profound influence from Aristotle.