拉康鏡像理論與克里斯蒂娃符號學的比較

【摘要】：茱莉婭·克里斯蒂娃是法國著名的女性主義家，拉康·雅克是法國被稱為繼弗洛伊德以來最具有影響力的心理分析學家。當研究克里斯蒂娃的符號學理論時，可以清楚地發(fā)現(xiàn)她的文論很多都受到了拉康的影響。本文主要討論了拉康的鏡像理論與克里斯蒂娃符號學理論的相似處和不同處，從而研究出二者從彼此理論中所受到的影響。

【關鍵詞】：鏡像理論；符號學；拉康；克里斯蒂娃

【Abstract】： Julia Kristeva is a very famous feminist who lived in France， while Jacques Lacan is a French psychoanalyst and psychiatrist who has been called “the most controversial psycho-analyst since Freud”. When analyzing Kristeva’s ideas and theories， it is obvious that Lacan had made very deep influence on her. In this paper， a comparison between Kristeva’s semiotics and Lacan’ mirror stage theory including the similarity and difference is analyzed here.

【Key words】： mirror stage， semimotic， Lacan， Kristeva

1. Lacan’s Mirror Stage

Mirror stage is Lacan’s famous theory， which describes the formation of one person’s subjectivity. According to Lacan， mirror stage refers to the period when child goes into about 6 months. At six months， the baby still lacks the sense of subjectivity. When the baby stands before a mirror and sees his own image in the mirror， he is able to recognize himself in a mirror prior to the attainment of control over his body movements. But he still can’t coordinate the image with the body. He sees the image as a whole and a rivalry because the wholeness of the image threatens the child with fragmentation. That’s why the mirror stage leads to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image. Therefore， in order to solve the tension， the baby identifies with the image： this is just the first identification of Ego for the baby.

Lacan describes the mirror stage as “ formative of the function of I as revealed in psychoanalytic experience.” He regarded the mirror stage as more than a moment in the infant’s life， but an important part of the formation of the subjectivity. When the baby begins to identify his ego， he appears to be very happy because it leads to an “imaginary sense of mastery”. But when the baby compare this sense of mastery with that of his mother， he would feel depressed at the same time.

2. Kristeva’s Semiotic

Kristeva’s Semiotic is closely related to the theory of psychoanalysis such as Freud’s pre-Oedipal and Lacan’s pre-mirror stage. According to Kristeva， Semiotic is an emotional field which is tied to the instincts and prosody of language rather than in the denotative meanings of words. In addition， Kristeva’s semiotic is associated with the musical， poetic and rhythmic language which lacks structure and meaning. Therefore， it is closely involved in “feminie”， and represents state of the pre-mirror stage infant.

Influenced deeply by Lacan’s mirror stage theory， Kristeva divided the language development in mirror stage into two states： the semiotic and the symbolic. Before entering mirror stage， the baby has no concept of self or identity. The semiotic is associated with the masculine， the law， and structure. And this is called pre-mirror stage.When entering the mirror stage， the baby begins to distinguish between himself and other， therefore he is entering the realm of shared cultural meaning， known as the symbolic， which is reflected by Lacan as well. In this stage， the development of language allows the baby to become a “speaking subject”， and to develop a sense of identity which is different from his mother. This separation process from his mither is called abjection， because in this stage， baby would reject and move away from his mother in order to enter into a world of language， culture， meaning， and the social. This realm of language is called the symbolic， which is contrasted to the semiotic.

What Kristeva departs from Lacan is that according to Kristeva， even after entering the symbolic， the subject continues to vacillate between the semiotic and the symbolic. While Lacan thought a fixed identity is arrived， Kristeva thought the subject is aways changing and vacillating. Because the female baby would continue to identify with the mother， and is especially likely to retain a close connection with the semiotic. As a result， the female child simultaneously reject and identify with the mother figure， so he feels happy and depressed at the same time. After abjecting the mother， the child retains an unconscious fascination with the semiotic， and desires to reunite with the mother， but at the same time， he is fearing to lose his own identity.

3. Conclusion

If Lacan’s theory represents the paternal laws and cultures or phallocentric thinking， Kristeva’s semiotic theory is about maternal return， which develops Lacan’s mirror stage theory and criticizes his repressive symbolic order. Kristeva thought many of Lacan’s symbolic terms were not as stable as he said， for example， the “real， imaginary， symbolic，” in the mirror stage， the “signifier and signified” in unconscious function， “the phallic mother”and “symbolic father” in psychoanalysis and so on. She didn’t accept all of Lacan’s theory， and maintained some critiques about that.

To conclude， Kristeva maintains that women are repressed by the male-dominated society and forced to be mute and invisible. The effective challenge of feminists should be achieved not only on political rights， but also more importantly in the intellectual transportation of the phallocentric thinking. In her theories of semiotic， Kristeva emphasizes the importance of both the semiotic and the symbolic， which develops from Lacan’s theory but is different from it and revised from it.

Works cited：

Jones， Ann Rosalind. \"Julia Kristeva on femininity： The limits of a semiotic politics.\"

Feminist Review 18 （1984）： 56-73.

Kristeva， Julia. \"The semiotic activity.\" Screen 14.1-2 （1973）： 25-39.

Lacan， Jacques. \"The mirror stage.\" écrits： A selection （1977）： 1-7.

劉文. \"拉康的鏡像理論與自我的建構(gòu).\" 學術交流 7 （2006）： 26-27.

岳鳳梅. \"拉康與法國女性主義.\" 婦女研究論叢 3 （2004）： 59-63.

張一兵. \"拉康鏡像理論的哲學本相.\" 福建論壇 （人文社會科學版） 10 （2004）：009.