【思考】符号秩序的危机与性别主体性的历史转向 - Reflections on the Crisis of the Symbolic Order and the Historical Turn of Gendered Subjectivity
Anthropological research reveals a thought-provoking possibility: human society may have originated from a matriarchal structure in which women once held higher status than men. If this hypothesis holds true, then according to the Daoist dialectical principle that “reversal is the movement of the Way,” history may not be a linear progression but rather a kind of spiral return. The structural transformations that contemporary society is experiencing—the collapse of the symbolic order, the erosion of traditional gender advantages by technology, and the revaluation of feminine qualities—may not be isolated phenomena. Instead, they may signify that human society is undergoing a historical threshold transition: a shift from the patriarchal symbolic order toward a new form of feminine subjectivity.
人类学研究揭示了一个引人深思的可能性:人类社会或许起源于母系社会,女性地位曾高于男性。若这一假设成立,那么根据”反者道之动”的辩证原理,历史可能并非线性进步,而是呈现某种螺旋式的回归运动。当代社会正在经历的诸多结构性变革——符号秩序的崩塌、技术对传统性别优势的消解、女性特质的价值重估——或许并非孤立的现象,而是预示着人类社会正处于一个历史性的临界转变之中:从父权符号秩序向一种新型的女性主体性社会的过渡。
This proposition must be understood through the lens of Lacanian psychoanalysis. In Lacan’s theory, the male subject is anchored in the symbolic order by identifying with the “Name-of-the-Father,” occupying the position of the “Big Other”—the embodiment of structure itself. The stability of patriarchal society rests upon the reliability of this symbolic order: law, contract, authority, and hierarchy all depend on the effective functioning of the symbolic system. However, contemporary society is witnessing an unprecedented crisis of the symbolic order. Artificial intelligence has detached the production of symbols from the intentionality of the subject; phenomena such as deepfakes, fabricated images, and generated texts proliferate, technically tearing open the ontological fissure between the symbolic and the real. More profoundly, people are beginning to lose faith in the Big Other itself, to demystify traditional authority, and to realize that the symbolic order is not a transcendent absolute but a historical construction. This skepticism toward the Big Other shakes the symbolic foundation of patriarchy at its core.
这一论断需要从拉康精神分析理论的框架来理解。在拉康的理论中,男性主体通过认同”原父之名”被牢固地锚定于符号秩序,扮演着”大他者”的角色——即结构本身的化身。父权社会的稳定性建立在这一符号秩序的可靠性之上:法律、契约、权威、等级制度等结构性安排,都依赖于符号系统的有效运作。然而,当代社会正在经历符号秩序前所未有的危机。人工智能技术使得符号的生产脱离了主体意志的支撑,深度伪造、虚假图像、生成文本等现象泛滥,符号与真实之间的本体论裂隙被技术性地撕开。更深层的变化在于,人们开始对大他者本身失去信任,对传统权威结构进行祛魅,认识到符号秩序并非超越性的绝对存在,而只是历史性的建构。这种对大他者的质疑,从根本上动摇了父权社会的符号基础。
At the same time, technological transformation is reconstructing the material basis of gender advantage. In agrarian and industrial societies, men’s physical strength constituted the material condition for their social dominance. Yet the rapid development of artificial intelligence is systematically dissolving this advantage: automation replaces physical labor, algorithms replace procedural cognitive labor, and the traditional “male advantage” is being displaced by technology. In contrast, the capacities long undervalued within patriarchal structures—creativity, sensibility, empathy, and intuition—have become invaluable in the age of AI, precisely because they resist technological substitution. These traits, though often socially attributed to women, must be discussed with caution, lest one fall into the trap of essentialism.
与此同时,技术变革正在重构性别优势的物质基础。在农业社会和工业社会中,男性的体力优势构成了其社会主导地位的物质条件。然而,人工智能的快速发展正在系统性地消解这一优势:自动化替代了体力劳动,算法替代了程序性认知劳动,传统意义上的”男性优势”领域正在被技术所取代。反而是那些长期被父权结构低估的能力——创造力、感性、共情力、直觉力——在AI时代显示出无法被技术替代的珍贵价值。这些能力恰恰是女性长期以来被社会化培养和发展的特质,尽管这种归属本身需要警惕本质主义的陷阱。
这里需要回到女性在符号秩序中的独特位置。拉康指出,女性主体的性别化过程是”并非全部”的——她既通过成为”阳具”(即男性欲望的客体)部分地进入符号秩序,又始终存在溢出这一符号位置的剩余维度。这种”未完全符号化”的特性,使得女性主体不被符号界完全捕获,保持着某种本体论上的开放性和流动性。在父权符号秩序稳定运作的时期,这一特性被视为边缘位置,被解读为女性在符号秩序中的”缺失”。然而,当符号秩序本身陷入危机,当工具理性失效,当符号的可靠性崩塌,女性的这一特性反而转化为一种优势——她们对实在界保持着更直接的接近,拥有更大的主体适应性,能够在符号秩序的废墟上开辟新的可能性。
To deepen the argument, we must return to the unique position of women within the symbolic order. Lacan pointed out that the process of female subjectivization is “not-all”—the woman enters the symbolic order only partially, by becoming the “phallus” (the object of male desire), yet always retains an excess that escapes symbolization. This “not fully symbolized” dimension allows the feminine subject to remain open and fluid in her ontological existence. During the stable operation of the patriarchal symbolic order, this was interpreted as a lack, a marginality. However, when the symbolic order itself falls into crisis—when instrumental reason collapses and the reliability of signification breaks down—this very characteristic becomes an advantage. The feminine subject, maintaining a more immediate relation to the Real, demonstrates greater adaptability and the potential to open new possibilities upon the ruins of the symbolic.
当前的经验性现象为这一理论分析提供了某种支持。女性主义文献在近年来呈现爆发式增长,不仅在学术领域,更在大众文化中获得广泛传播。女性在创意产业、护理领域、教育行业等方面的价值得到前所未有的重视。更重要的是,年轻一代的性别观念正在经历快速转变,传统的性别规范和角色期待受到广泛质疑。这些现象或许不应被简单地理解为孤立的社会运动,而可能是一次深层结构转型的表征——父权符号秩序正在瓦解,而新的性别秩序尚在生成之中。
Empirical phenomena appear to lend support to this theoretical analysis. Feminist scholarship has experienced an explosive growth in recent years, extending beyond academia into popular culture. Women’s contributions in creative industries, caregiving, and education are being recognized as never before. More crucially, younger generations’ attitudes toward gender are shifting rapidly, as traditional gender norms and role expectations are widely questioned. These phenomena should not be understood merely as isolated social movements but rather as symptoms of a deep structural transformation: the patriarchal symbolic order is disintegrating, and a new gender order is in formation.
然而,这一分析必须避免陷入简单的历史决定论或本质主义陷阱。首先,”反者道之动”作为一种辩证原理,并不构成充分的历史预测依据。历史的发展受到多重因素的交互作用,不能简化为某种循环论或必然论。其次,将创造力、感性、共情力本质化地归于女性,可能重复了传统性别二元论的错误。这些能力的性别分布更可能是社会化和结构性压迫的结果,而非生物学本质。更关键的是,所谓”女性主导社会”的含义需要被审慎界定。如果它仅仅意味着性别权力的简单倒置——用女性对男性的统治替代男性对女性的统治——那么这种转变不过是父权逻辑的变体,并未实现真正的超越。
Nevertheless, this analysis must avoid the pitfalls of historical determinism and essentialism. First, the dialectical principle of “reversal as the movement of the Way” does not constitute a sufficient basis for historical prediction. History unfolds through complex interactions among multiple forces and cannot be reduced to cycles or inevitabilities. Second, attributing creativity, sensibility, or empathy essentially to women risks repeating the binary logic of traditional gender discourse. These capacities are more likely outcomes of socialization and structural constraint than of biological essence. Most importantly, the notion of a “female-dominated society” requires careful definition. If it merely entails a reversal of domination—women ruling men instead of men ruling women—it remains trapped within the same patriarchal logic, achieving no genuine transcendence.
因此,更准确的表述或许不是”女性主导社会”,而是”后父权符号秩序”。这是一个不再以单一的男性符号逻辑为组织原则,而是能够容纳多元主体性形式、重视关系性存在、承认实在界不可化约性的新型社会结构。在这个意义上,女性特质的价值重估不是为了建立新的统治,而是为了打破二元对立的性别逻辑本身。当我们在前文讨论信任的重构时,曾指出关系性存在、共情能力、对差异的包容是信任得以生长的土壤。这些恰恰是长期以来被父权理性主义贬低为”感性的”、”非理性的”能力。符号秩序的危机为这些能力的重新评价打开了空间,而这些能力的彰显又可能催生出一种不同于父权秩序的社会组织形式。
A more accurate formulation, therefore, may be the notion of a “post-patriarchal symbolic order.” This is not a social structure organized around a singular masculine logic, but one that accommodates plural forms of subjectivity, values relational existence, and acknowledges the irreducibility of the Real. The revaluation of feminine qualities is not aimed at establishing a new domination but at dissolving the very binary opposition of gender. In earlier discussions of the reconstruction of trust, we noted that relational being, empathy, and openness to difference constitute the soil in which trust can grow. These are precisely the capacities long devalued by patriarchal rationalism as “emotional” or “irrational.” The crisis of the symbolic order creates the space for their revaluation, and their resurgence may in turn foster a new form of social organization distinct from patriarchal order.
从这个角度看,当代的信任危机、符号秩序的崩塌、AI技术的冲击、女性主义的兴起,并非彼此孤立的现象,而是同一个历史性转型过程的不同面向。它们共同指向一个可能的未来:一个父权符号秩序不再居于绝对统治地位,女性主体性获得充分展开空间,关系性、感性、直觉力等长期被压抑的维度得以彰显的社会。这不是简单的历史倒退或权力倒置,而是在更高层次上对人类主体性的重新整合——一种既超越了原始母系社会的未分化状态,又超越了父权社会的符号暴力的新型文明形态。
From this perspective, the crisis of trust, the collapse of the symbolic order, the shock of AI technology, and the rise of feminism are not isolated phenomena but interconnected aspects of a single historical transformation. Together, they point toward a possible future: a society in which the patriarchal symbolic order no longer occupies the position of absolute dominance; where feminine subjectivity unfolds freely; and where relationality, sensibility, and intuition—dimensions long repressed—can finally manifest. This is not a mere regression or inversion of power, but a higher-level reintegration of human subjectivity—a new form of civilization that transcends both the undifferentiated matriarchal origins and the symbolic violence of patriarchy.
当然,这一转型的实现充满了不确定性和复杂性。符号秩序的危机既可能开启解放的可能性,也可能导致新的暴力形式。技术对性别优势的重构既可能促进平等,也可能被既有权力结构所吸纳和利用。女性主义的兴起既可能推动真正的结构性变革,也可能被商品化和表面化。然而,正是在这种不确定性之中,历史的可能性才得以展开。认识到我们可能正处于一个历史性的临界点,本身就是一种理论和实践的赋权——它提醒我们,当下的每一个选择、每一次行动,都可能参与塑造未来的性别秩序和社会结构。
Of course, this transformation is fraught with uncertainty and complexity. The crisis of the symbolic order may open pathways of liberation, but it may also give rise to new forms of violence. The technological reconfiguration of gender advantage may promote equality but could equally be absorbed and exploited by existing power structures. The rise of feminism may drive structural change but also risk commodification and superficiality. Yet it is precisely within such uncertainty that history’s potential unfolds. Recognizing that we may be standing at a historical threshold is itself an act of empowerment—it reminds us that every choice and every action in the present participates in shaping the future gender order and social structure.
因此,对符号秩序危机的回应,不仅仅是一个认识论或伦理学问题,更是一个关乎历史走向的政治问题。当我们在个人层面培养关系性存在能力,在社会层面重建制度性信任时,我们实际上也在参与构建后父权时代的主体性形式和社会秩序。这一过程既需要对父权符号秩序进行根本性的批判,也需要警惕任何形式的本质主义和新的统治逻辑。只有在这种批判性的、开放性的、多元性的实践中,一个真正超越父权逻辑的未来才可能到来。
Hence, responding to the crisis of the symbolic order is not merely an epistemological or ethical question but a political one concerning the trajectory of history. When we cultivate relational existence at the personal level and rebuild institutional trust at the societal level, we are, in effect, participating in the formation of post-patriarchal subjectivity and social order. This process requires both a radical critique of patriarchal symbolic logic and vigilance against any new essentialism or domination. Only through such critical, open, and plural practices can a truly post-patriarchal future come into being.