The Mediation of Lack： Feminine Position and Subject Structure in Lacanian Theory - 缺失的中介：拉康理论中的女性位置与主体结构
缺失的中介：拉康理论中的女性位置与主体结构
The Mediation of Lack: Feminine Position and Subject Structure in Lacanian Theory
说明
Note
本文是对雅克·拉康（Jacques Lacan）精神分析理论的学术阐释，聚焦于其关于符号秩序、主体生成与欲望结构的理论建构。文中使用的”女性位置””男性位置””癔症结构”等概念，均为拉康理论体系内的专业术语，指涉的是符号系统中的结构性位置，这些概念超越了生理性别、社会性别、人格类型或任何关于现实个体的经验性判断。
This article is an academic exposition of Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theory, focusing on his theoretical construction of the symbolic order, subject formation, and the structure of desire. The concepts used in this text such as “feminine position,” “masculine position,” and “hysteric structure” are all technical terms within Lacan’s theoretical system, referring to structural positions within the symbolic system. These concepts transcend biological sex, social gender, personality types, or any empirical judgments about actual individuals.
“女性位置”（position féminine）在拉康理论中指的是：在以某个核心能指为中心组织的符号秩序中，无法被完全纳入”有/无”二元逻辑的结构性位置。这个位置可以被任何性别的主体占据，其核心特征是与符号秩序的”非全”关系。同样，”男性位置”指的是能够在符号秩序中通过该核心能指获得稳定定位的结构性位置。
The “feminine position” (position féminine) in Lacanian theory refers to a structural position within the symbolic order (organized around a core signifier) that cannot be fully inscribed into the binary logic of “having/lacking.” This position can be occupied by subjects of any gender, and its core characteristic is a relation of “not-all” (pas-toute) to the symbolic order. Similarly, the “masculine position” refers to a structural position that can achieve stable positioning within the symbolic order through that core signifier.
本文讨论的是精神分析与主体生成理论中的结构性问题，所使用的”女性””男性””癔症”等概念，均指向符号秩序与主体位置中的结构角色。
This article discusses structural problems in psychoanalysis and theories of subject formation. The use of terms such as “feminine,” “masculine,” and “hysteria” all point to structural roles within the symbolic order and subject positions.
本讨论不旨在对任何性别或群体作出规范性评价，而是尝试理解：在特定社会与符号条件下，主体如何以不同方式被生成、被分配、并维持其稳定性。
This discussion does not aim to make normative evaluations of any gender or group, but rather attempts to understand: under specific social and symbolic conditions, how subjects are generated, distributed, and maintain their stability in different ways.
相关论述仅为理论阐释，不构成对任何群体的描述、评价或规定。
The following discussions are purely theoretical expositions and do not constitute descriptions, evaluations, or prescriptions for any group.
引言：精神分析理论中的女性问题
Introduction: The Question of the Feminine in Psychoanalytic Theory
精神分析理论从诞生之初就面对着关于女性的理论困境。弗洛伊德曾坦承他对女性心理的困惑，提出那个著名的问题：”女性究竟想要什么？”这个问题标志着精神分析在女性问题上遭遇的结构性障碍。弗洛伊德试图通过一系列关于性别发展和情结的概念来理解女性主体的形成，但这些理论框架始终以男性发展模式为参照，将女性置于一个派生的、补充性的位置。这种理论困境不仅暴露了早期精神分析的局限，更深层地揭示了当时的理论系统在处理女性位置时的根本性难题。
From its inception, psychoanalytic theory has confronted theoretical dilemmas concerning the feminine. Freud candidly admitted his perplexity regarding feminine psychology, posing that famous question: “What does a woman want?” This question marks the structural obstacle that psychoanalysis encountered in addressing the feminine question. Freud attempted to understand the formation of the feminine subject through a series of concepts concerning sexual development and complexes, but these theoretical frameworks consistently took the masculine developmental model as their reference point, positioning the feminine in a derivative, supplementary location. This theoretical impasse not only exposed the limitations of early psychoanalysis but more profoundly revealed the fundamental difficulties of the theoretical system of that time in addressing the feminine position.
直到20世纪50至70年代拉康的理论出现，精神分析对于女性位置的理解才有了新的进展。拉康通过引入结构主义语言学和索绪尔的符号学理论，将精神分析重新奠基于符号秩序的分析之上[1]。在这个框架中，拉康提出了那个著名的断言：”La femme n’existe pas”（女人不存在）[2]。拉康的理论意涵在于：在符号系统的层面上，不存在一个可以完全界定、完全命名的”女性本质”。
It was not until the emergence of Lacan’s theory in the 1950s-70s that psychoanalysis made new progress in understanding the feminine position. By introducing structuralist linguistics and Saussure’s semiotic theory, Lacan re-founded psychoanalysis upon the analysis of the symbolic order[1]. Within this framework, Lacan proposed that famous assertion: “La femme n’existe pas” (Woman does not exist)[2]. Lacan’s theoretical implication is that: at the level of the symbolic system, there does not exist a “feminine essence” that can be completely defined or fully named.
这一论断的核心关涉拉康理论中主体如何被欲望构造、如何进入语言秩序、如何与他者的欲望发生关系的问题。在拉康看来，符号秩序作为一个以某个核心能指（拉康使用”Phallus”这个术语，此处指作为符号功能的能指，源于他对俄狄浦斯情结的符号化改造）为中心建构的系统，通过这个能指的”在场/缺席”来组织主体位置。在拉康的理论假设中，占据”男性位置”的主体能够通过认同父亲的符号位置，在这个”有/无”的区分系统中获得稳定定位，而占据”女性位置”的主体却始终处于这一逻辑之外。这里说的”之外”意味着无法被完全纳入这个符号体系。拉康认为，女性位置在符号中总是”多出来的、剩余的、不可完全命名的”，而这恰恰构成了他所说的某种特定主体结构的位置。在精神分析传统中，这种结构被称为”癔症主体”（sujet hystérique）。需要特别说明的是，这个术语在拉康理论中完全是一个技术性概念，指的是主体与符号秩序、与他者欲望的特定关系模式，这个概念与日常语言中的”癔症”或任何病理学意义之间存在根本差异。
The core of this assertion concerns the question of how, in Lacanian theory, the subject is constructed by desire, how it enters the linguistic order, and how it relates to the desire of the Other. In Lacan’s view, the symbolic order, as a system constructed around a core signifier (Lacan uses the term “Phallus,” which here refers to a signifier functioning symbolically, derived from his symbolic reworking of the Oedipus complex), organizes subject positions through the “presence/absence” of this signifier. In Lacan’s theoretical hypothesis, subjects occupying the “masculine position” can achieve stable positioning within this system of “having/lacking” distinction through identification with the father’s symbolic position, while subjects occupying the “feminine position” remain perpetually outside this logic. This “outside” means being unable to be fully inscribed into this symbolic system. Lacan considers that the feminine position in the symbolic is always “excessive, remainder, incompletely nameable,” and this precisely constitutes what he calls a certain specific subject structure. In the psychoanalytic tradition, this structure is called the “hysteric subject” (sujet hystérique). It must be especially noted that this term in Lacanian theory is entirely a technical concept, referring to a specific relational pattern between the subject and the symbolic order, and the desire of the Other. This concept has fundamental differences from “hysteria” in everyday language or any pathological sense.
当拉康讨论”女性位置与这种特定主体结构的关联”时，他关注的是一种主体结构与符号秩序的同构关系，完全超越了临床意义上的症状或病理学范畴。在拉康的理论系统中，女性位置与这种主体结构在符号系统中呈现某种对应性，因为两者都面对着同一个根本性困境：如何在一个无法为其提供完整命名的秩序中生成并维持主体性。拉康的分析认为，这一困境源于符号秩序本身的结构性不对称，而非任何本质性的性别差异。
When Lacan discusses “the connection between the feminine position and this specific subject structure,” he focuses on an isomorphic relation between a subject structure and the symbolic order, completely transcending clinical symptoms or pathological categories. In Lacan’s theoretical system, the feminine position and this subject structure present a certain correspondence within the symbolic system, because both face the same fundamental dilemma: how to generate and maintain subjectivity within an order that cannot provide it with complete naming. Lacan’s analysis suggests that this dilemma stems from the structural asymmetry inherent to the symbolic order itself, not from any essential gender difference.
符号系统的自指与缺失的涌现
The Self-Reference of the Symbolic System and the Emergence of Lack
要理解拉康理论中这一机制的生成逻辑，我们需要回到其本体论预设。在拉康的理论框架中，符号系统（the Symbolic Order）的运作依赖于一种自指性结构。宇宙的生成性、生命的延续、社会的再生产以及欲望本身，都需要指向自身以实现再生产。这种自指性指向延续本身的可能性，超越任何外在的终点。拉康认为，符号系统的存在是为了让存在持续可生成，而非为了”说完存在”。
To understand the generative logic of this mechanism in Lacanian theory, we need to return to its ontological presuppositions. In Lacan’s theoretical framework, the operation of the symbolic system (the Symbolic Order) depends on a self-referential structure. The generativity of the universe, the continuation of life, social reproduction, and desire itself all require pointing toward themselves to achieve reproduction. This self-referentiality points to the possibility of continuation itself, transcending any external endpoint. Lacan argues that the symbolic system exists to allow existence to remain continuously generative, not to “exhaust existence.”
然而，拉康理论的一个核心命题是：符号永远无法穷尽实在（the Real）。这个事实构成符号系统得以持续运作的前提条件。符号必须指称存在，但又必然在自身内部制造一个”不可说尽之处”。在拉康看来，如果缺失（manque）直接显现，欲望会崩塌，意义会中断，主体会滑向精神病性的断裂。因此，符号系统面对一个结构性需求：缺失必须被”看见”但不能被”直面”，必须被”感知”但不能被”占有”。
However, one core proposition of Lacanian theory is: the symbolic can never exhaust the Real. This fact constitutes the precondition for the symbolic system’s continued operation. The symbolic must designate existence, yet necessarily produces within itself a place that “cannot be fully articulated.” In Lacan’s view, if lack (manque) appears directly, desire collapses, meaning is interrupted, and the subject slides toward psychotic rupture. Therefore, the symbolic system faces a structural requirement: lack must be “seen” but cannot be “confronted directly,” must be “sensed” but cannot be “possessed.”
这就产生了拉康理论中一个核心概念的必要性：对象a（objet petit a）。这是一个既不等同于缺失、又不填补缺失的中介位置。对象a不是欲望的对象，它作为欲望得以维持的原因（cause du désir）[3]在拉康理论中发挥作用。在拉康的理论建构中，缺失作为使自指成立的条件被结构性涌现。他认为，任何符号社会在稳定运行时，几乎必然会生成这种结构解法，因为社会必须持续再生产欲望，否则主体将不再行动、不再连接、不再创造。在拉康的欲望理论中，欲望需要被中介化地维持，这个过程既无法通过满足也无法通过取消来完成。
This produces the necessity of one core concept in Lacanian theory: objet petit a (object little a). This is a mediating position that neither equates with lack nor fills lack. Object a is not the object of desire; it functions in Lacanian theory as the cause of desire (cause du désir)[3]. In Lacan’s theoretical construction, lack emerges structurally as the condition that enables self-reference. He argues that any symbolic society, in its stable operation, almost inevitably generates this structural solution, because society must continuously reproduce desire, otherwise the subject will cease to act, cease to connect, cease to create. In Lacan’s theory of desire, desire needs to be maintained in a mediated way, a process that can be completed neither through satisfaction nor through cancellation.
拉康理论中的主体形成路径
Pathways of Subject Formation in Lacanian Theory
在拉康的理论框架中，占据”男性位置”的主体形成过程是这样描述的：通过俄狄浦斯情结和”父之名”（Nom-du-Père）的介入，主体经历了一个符号化的认同过程。在这个过程中，男孩通过认同父亲，在符号秩序中获得一个与”父亲拥有的符号位置”相关联的位置。拉康将这个机制抽象为围绕一个核心能指的”有/无”区分：父亲被假定为”拥有”这个能指，母亲被定位为”缺少”这个能指，而男性主体通过认同父亲，在”有”的一侧获得符号定位。在这个理论图式中，主体性等同于在这个”有/无”的区分系统中获得一个可确定的位置，这是一个可以仅凭符号关系完成的闭合过程。
In Lacan’s theoretical framework, the formation process of subjects occupying the “masculine position” is described as follows: through the Oedipus complex and the intervention of the “Name-of-the-Father” (Nom-du-Père), the subject undergoes a symbolic process of identification. In this process, the boy, through identification with the father, obtains a position in the symbolic order associated with “the symbolic position possessed by the father.” Lacan abstracts this mechanism into a “having/lacking” distinction around a core signifier: the father is assumed to “have” this signifier, the mother is positioned as “lacking” this signifier, and the masculine subject, through identification with the father, obtains symbolic positioning on the side of “having.” In this theoretical schema, subjectivity equals obtaining a determinable position within this system of “having/lacking” distinction (a closure process that can be completed solely through symbolic relations).
需要说明的是，这个”有/无”的二元区分是拉康将弗洛伊德的俄狄浦斯情结进行符号化改造后的理论建构，这一建构基于俄狄浦斯情结的普遍性假设。符号系统本身不必然采取这种二元区分的形式。这个假设本身在当代理论中受到广泛质疑。
It should be noted that this binary distinction of “having/lacking” is a theoretical construction resulting from Lacan’s symbolic reworking of Freud’s Oedipus complex, and this construction is based on the assumption of the universality of the Oedipus complex. The symbolic system itself does not necessarily take this form of binary distinction. This assumption itself has been widely questioned in contemporary theory.
拉康的理论观察认为，符号秩序难以为”女性位置”的主体提供一个可闭合的位置。在他的理论假设中，由于符号秩序围绕上述核心能指及其”有/无”区分来组织，而女性在俄狄浦斯情结的经典叙事中被定位为”缺少”这个能指的一方，女性位置难以被完全映射到这个区分系统中。在拉康的理论描述中，女性位置处于符号与实在之间的”未闭合地带”。这个位置难以仅凭符号关系完成主体闭合，因此拉康观察到，这个位置的主体倾向于在实在界的关系结构中寻找、测试、生成自身的位置。
Lacan’s theoretical observation suggests that the symbolic order has difficulty providing a closable position for subjects in the “feminine position.” In his theoretical hypothesis, because the symbolic order is organized around the aforementioned core signifier and its “having/lacking” distinction, and because the feminine in the classical narrative of the Oedipus complex is positioned as the side that “lacks” this signifier, the feminine position is difficult to be fully mapped onto this system of distinction. In Lacan’s theoretical description, the feminine position exists in an “unclosed zone” between the symbolic and the Real. This position has difficulty achieving subject closure solely through symbolic relations, and therefore Lacan observes that subjects in this position tend to seek, test, and generate their own position within the relational structure of the Real.
拉康用”非全”（pas-toute）这个概念来描述女性位置与符号秩序的关系。”非全”指的是一种根本性的无法被全部纳入符号逻辑的状态，这个概念超越了”部分”或”不完整”的含义。这种理论建构试图解释拉康在临床中的某些观察。（需要注意的是，拉康的这些观察和理论建构基于20世纪中期的临床实践和社会背景，其普遍性和适用性在当代受到广泛质疑。）
Lacan uses the concept of “not-all” (pas-toute) to describe the relationship between the feminine position and the symbolic order. “Not-all” refers to a fundamental state of being unable to be fully inscribed into symbolic logic; this concept transcends the meanings of “partial” or “incomplete.” This theoretical construction attempts to explain certain observations Lacan made in clinical practice. (It should be noted that these observations and theoretical constructions of Lacan are based on clinical practice and social background of the mid-20th century, and their universality and applicability are widely questioned in contemporary theory.)
在拉康的理论图式中，这些现象被解释为主体生成路径的可能结果之一。当符号系统难以提供一个完成的位置时，拉康的理论假设认为，主体可能更多地在关系的持续生成中寻找自身存在的确认。但主体是关系性的主体，关系本身需要持续的动力学支撑，而拉康理论中这一动力学的核心正是欲望。
In Lacan’s theoretical schema, these phenomena are explained as one possible result of the pathway of subject generation. When the symbolic system has difficulty providing a completed position, Lacan’s theoretical hypothesis suggests that the subject may seek confirmation of its own existence more through the continuous generation of relations. But the subject is a relational subject; relations themselves require continuous dynamic support, and the core of this dynamic in Lacanian theory is precisely desire.
从结构到生成：拉康理论中的缺失中介
From Structure to Becoming: The Mediation of Lack in Lacanian Theory
拉康的理论不仅提供静态的结构分析，更关注主体的生成性（becoming）。当我们转向生成性视角时，就会看到拉康理论的关键洞见。问题的核心在于关系结构的动力学及其可持续性。在拉康的框架中，女性位置的主体可能面对的一个理论性难题是：在一个难以提供充分命名的位置上，如何让关系持续运作？
Lacan’s theory not only provides static structural analysis but also focuses on the subject’s becoming. When we turn to the perspective of becoming, we see the key insight of Lacanian theory. The core of the problem lies in the dynamics of relational structure and its sustainability. In Lacan’s framework, one theoretical difficulty that subjects in the feminine position may face is: in a position that has difficulty providing adequate naming, how can relations continue to operate?
拉康的分析认为，任何关系要持续，可能需要依靠欲望、张力和未完成性。他的欲望理论指出，欲望的结构指向缺失的延续，超越了指向对象本身。我们可以将拉康的理论前提理解为这样一个逻辑关系：在他的框架中，主体的稳定性关联于关系动力学的持续，关系动力学关联于欲望的持续，欲望的持续关联于缺失的持续，因此主体稳定性在某种程度上关联于缺失的持续存在。在拉康的理论中，缺失可能成为稳定性的一个载体。
Lacan’s analysis suggests that for any relation to continue, it may need to rely on desire, tension, and incompleteness. His theory of desire points out that the structure of desire points to the continuation of lack, transcending pointing to the object itself. We can understand Lacan’s theoretical premises as such a logical relation: in his framework, the subject’s stability is linked to the continuation of relational dynamics, relational dynamics are linked to the continuation of desire, the continuation of desire is linked to the continuation of lack, and therefore subject stability is to some extent linked to the continued existence of lack. In Lacan’s theory, lack may become a carrier of stability.
但拉康进一步分析，如果缺失仅仅是外在条件，一旦缺失被他者填补、转移或否认，关系动力学就可能中断。对一个更依赖关系结构的主体位置来说，这可能构成某种风险。因此，拉康理论中提出的一种可能的生成论机制是：让”我自身”成为缺失得以出现、得以被访问、得以持续的场所，缺失从外部条件转化为某种内在的主体功能。这个过程可能将缺失的持续性转化为自身的主体功能，这正是对象a位置的一种理论描述。
But Lacan further analyzes that if lack is merely an external condition, once lack is filled, displaced, or denied by the Other, relational dynamics may be interrupted. For a subject position that relies more on relational structure, this may constitute a certain risk. Therefore, one possible generative mechanism proposed in Lacanian theory is: to make “myself” the place where lack can appear, can be accessed, can continue—lack transforms from an external condition into a certain internal subject function. This process may transform the continuity of lack into one’s own subject function; this is precisely one theoretical description of the position of object a.
当主体把自身稳定性更多地系于缺失的持续时，拉康的理论推测，它在经验层面可能呈现为某些特定模式，通过被欲望、被需要、被指向来确认关系仍在生成。在拉康的理论中，被它者欲望可能成为”缺失仍在运作”的一种信号。
When the subject ties its own stability more to the continuation of lack, Lacan’s theoretical speculation is that at the experiential level, it may present certain specific patterns, confirming through being desired, being needed, being pointed to that the relation is still being generated. In Lacan’s theory, being desired by the Other may become a signal that “lack is still operating.”
值得注意的是，一些当代学者在延伸拉康理论时，曾尝试分析特定文化符号的运作机制。例如，在讨论某些审美范畴时，有研究者指出，”可爱”（kawaii）作为一种文化表征，其运作方式可能与”美”（beauty）存在差异。如果说”美”倾向于完成性、对称性和稳定性，那么”可爱”可能更多地包含未完成性、轻微的不对称、以及对回应和关注的召唤[4]。从拉康的理论视角看，这类文化符号可能通过”非全”、边缘性、未封闭性来运作，从而在欲望的经济中发挥特定作用。
It is worth noting that some contemporary scholars, in extending Lacanian theory, have attempted to analyze the operational mechanisms of specific cultural symbols. For example, in discussing certain aesthetic categories, some researchers have pointed out that “cuteness” (kawaii), as a cultural representation, may operate differently from “beauty.” If “beauty” tends toward completion, symmetry, and stability, then “cuteness” may contain more incompleteness, slight asymmetry, and a call for response and attention [4]. From the perspective of Lacanian theory, such cultural symbols may operate through “not-all,” marginality, and unclosedness, thereby playing a specific role in the economy of desire.
需要特别强调的是，这类文化分析高度依赖特定的理论框架和文化语境。任何将理论模型应用于具体文化实践的尝试都需要极其谨慎，因为文化符号的意义是多元的、流动的、情境依赖的。这里的讨论仅作为拉康理论的一种可能延伸，不应被理解为对任何文化现象的规范性解释，更不构成对任何群体行为或审美选择的评价或建议。在拉康的理论语言中，某些文化表征可能作为缺失的中介发挥作用，但这一理论描述与具体的文化实践和个体经验之间的关系，始终需要保持批判性的距离和开放性的反思。
It must be especially emphasized that such cultural analysis is highly dependent on specific theoretical frameworks and cultural contexts. Any attempt to apply theoretical models to concrete cultural practices requires extreme caution, because the meaning of cultural symbols is multiple, fluid, and context-dependent. The discussion here is merely one possible extension of Lacanian theory and should not be understood as a normative explanation of any cultural phenomenon, much less as an evaluation or recommendation regarding any group behavior or aesthetic choices. In Lacan’s theoretical language, certain cultural representations may function as mediations of lack, but the relationship between this theoretical description and concrete cultural practices and individual experiences must always maintain critical distance and open reflection.
理论图式的内在逻辑
The Internal Logic of the Theoretical Schema
在拉康的理论总结中，由于女性位置的主体难以通过符号秩序完成主体闭合，其稳定性可能更多地依赖于实在界关系的持续生成。在关系的持续生成依赖于欲望，而欲望在缺失得以持续的前提下运作的理论假设下，拉康的分析提出，为了维持主体稳定性，女性位置的主体可能倾向于将缺失的持续性内嵌为自身的主体功能的一部分，缺失从可被填补的外在条件转化为主体功能的内在组成。在这一生成论的理论视角下，拉康的分析认为女性位置可能倾向于趋向”缺失之中介”的位置，并在经验层面可能呈现为某种特定的主体结构模式。
In Lacan’s theoretical summary, because subjects in the feminine position have difficulty achieving subject closure through the symbolic order, their stability may depend more on the continuous generation of relations in the Real. Under the theoretical hypothesis that the continuous generation of relations depends on desire, and desire operates on the premise that lack continues, Lacan’s analysis proposes that in order to maintain subject stability, subjects in the feminine position may tend to embed the continuity of lack as part of their own subject function—lack transforms from a fillable external condition into an internal component of subject function. Under this generative theoretical perspective, Lacan’s analysis suggests that the feminine position may tend toward the position of “mediation of lack,” and at the experiential level may present as a certain specific subject structure pattern.
拉康理论中这种特定主体结构的核心在于以自身为场所，让他者的欲望得以持续被提问。在拉康看来，女性位置的主体由于符号难以闭合、可能需要在关系中生成自身、而关系可能需要通过欲望维持，于是可能倾向于把”我在你欲望中是什么”（Che vuoi? 你要什么？）作为主体持续生成的一个核心问题。拉康的理论认为这可能是该主体结构的一个特征。
The core of this specific subject structure in Lacanian theory lies in making oneself the place where the desire of the Other can be continuously questioned. In Lacan’s view, subjects in the feminine position, because symbolic closure is difficult, may need to generate themselves in relations, and relations may need to be maintained through desire, and thus may tend to take “What am I in your desire?” (Che vuoi? What do you want?) as a core question of continuous subject generation. Lacan’s theory considers this may be a characteristic of that subject structure.
这种机制的产生，在拉康的分析中，可能源于在一个以符号为中心、以欲望维持运作的社会中，缺失需要被可访问但又不能被消除的结构性条件。拉康指出，历史性地、结构性地，女性位置可能倾向于处在”中介缺失”的位置上，这可能是符号系统寻求稳定性的一个结果。在拉康的理论框架中，女性位置可能呈现为这种特定主体结构，因为在一个难以为这个位置提供闭合的符号秩序中，这个位置可能倾向于通过成为”缺失得以被关系化的中介”，来维持主体与关系的双重生成。拉康认为这可能是一个生成论上较为稳定的结构，是符号系统再生产自身时的一种可能的结构性机制。
The emergence of this mechanism, in Lacan’s analysis, may stem from the structural condition that, in a society centered on the symbolic and operating through the maintenance of desire, lack needs to be accessible yet cannot be eliminated. Lacan points out that, historically and structurally, the feminine position may tend to be situated in the position of “mediating lack,” which may be a result of the symbolic system seeking stability. In Lacan’s theoretical framework, the feminine position may present as this specific subject structure because, in a symbolic order that has difficulty providing closure for this position, this position may tend to maintain the dual generation of subject and relation by becoming “the mediation through which lack can be relationalized.” Lacan considers this may be a relatively stable structure in generative terms, a possible structural mechanism when the symbolic system reproduces itself.
理论反思
Theoretical Reflection
需要强调的是，拉康的这套理论建构产生于20世纪中期的欧洲精神分析传统，其基础预设包括：（1）符号秩序的普遍性结构；（2）某个核心能指的中心地位；（3）俄狄浦斯情结的普遍性。这些预设在当代理论中受到多方面的批判性检视。
It must be emphasized that this set of theoretical constructions by Lacan emerged from the mid-20th century European psychoanalytic tradition, and its foundational presuppositions include: (1) the universal structure of the symbolic order; (2) the central position of a certain core signifier; (3) the universality of the Oedipus complex. These presuppositions have been subjected to critical examination from multiple perspectives in contemporary theory.
当代女性主义理论对拉康理论的批判主要集中在：拉康的理论是否仍然复制了父权符号秩序，是否将历史性的、社会性的性别不平等自然化为符号结构的必然性，以及”女性位置”这一概念本身是否仍然预设了一个本质化的性别二元。酷儿理论和后结构主义女性主义进一步质疑符号秩序的稳定性预设，指出主体位置的流动性和多元性可能远超拉康理论框架所能容纳。
Contemporary feminist theory’s critique of Lacanian theory focuses mainly on: whether Lacan’s theory still replicates the patriarchal symbolic order, whether it naturalizes historical and social gender inequality as the inevitability of symbolic structure, and whether the concept of “feminine position” itself still presupposes an essentialized gender binary. Queer theory and poststructuralist feminism further question the presupposition of the stability of the symbolic order, pointing out that the fluidity and multiplicity of subject positions may far exceed what the Lacanian theoretical framework can accommodate.
本文作为对拉康理论的内在阐释，目的在于理解其理论逻辑的一致性和洞察力，这个阐释本身不构成对理论的辩护或应用主张。拉康理论提供了一个理解符号系统、主体生成与欲望结构的独特视角，但这个视角本身需要被历史化、情境化，并接受持续的批判性反思。
This article, as an internal exposition of Lacanian theory, aims to understand the consistency and insight of its theoretical logic; this exposition itself does not constitute a defense of the theory or a claim for its application. Lacanian theory provides a unique perspective for understanding the symbolic system, subject formation, and the structure of desire, but this perspective itself needs to be historicized, contextualized, and subjected to continuous critical reflection.
值得注意的是，在人工智能等高度符号化技术迅速发展的当代情境中，拉康所假定的符号秩序稳定性本身正在受到新的挑战。大语言模型、算法决策系统与自动化符号生产机制，使得意义的生成、分配与再生产日益脱离传统的人类主体中心结构。这一变化不仅重新提出了主体如何被构成的问题，也使得关系、情感与伦理维度的重要性愈发凸显。
It is worth noting that in the contemporary context where highly symbolic technologies such as artificial intelligence are rapidly developing, the stability of the symbolic order that Lacan assumed is itself facing new challenges. Large language models, algorithmic decision systems, and automated symbolic production mechanisms are making the generation, distribution, and reproduction of meaning increasingly detached from traditional human-subject-centered structures. This change not only re-raises the question of how subjects are constituted, but also makes the importance of relational, affective, and ethical dimensions increasingly prominent.
在这一背景下，女性主义理论、关怀伦理（ethics of care）以及关于共情、共在等关系性能力的讨论，提供了重要的反思资源。这些理论从关系性存在的角度，重新思考主体如何在不完全可符号化的情境中维持连接、责任与回应能力，这一思考维度超越了单一的性别议题。
Against this background, feminist theory, the ethics of care, and discussions about relational capacities such as empathy and co-being provide important resources for reflection. These theories, from the perspective of relational existence, reconsider how subjects maintain connection, responsibility, and responsiveness in situations that are not fully symbolizable (a dimension of thought that transcends singular gender issues).
本文通过回到拉康关于符号、缺失与主体生成的理论图式，尝试为这一当代反思提供一个历史化、理论化的参照。本文希望表明：当符号结构本身发生动摇时，那些曾被视为”边缘”的关系性维度，或许正成为理解主体与社会再组织的关键线索。这一阐释本身不寻求提供规范性结论，它作为一个理论对话的起点存在。
This article, by returning to Lacan’s theoretical schema of the symbolic, lack, and subject formation, attempts to provide a historicized, theorized reference point for this contemporary reflection. This article hopes to demonstrate that: when the symbolic structure itself is shaken, those relational dimensions once regarded as “marginal” may be becoming key clues for understanding the reorganization of subjects and society. This exposition itself does not seek to provide normative conclusions; it exists as a starting point for theoretical dialogue.
参考文献
References
[1] Lacan, J. (1966). Écrits. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
[2] Lacan, J. (1975). Encore: Le Séminaire, Livre XX (1972–1973). Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
[3] Lacan, J. (1978). The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI: The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis (A. Sheridan, Trans.; J.-A. Miller, Ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
[4] Ngai, S. (2012). Our Aesthetic Categories: Zany, Cute, Interesting. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.