Possibility, Performance, Politics: On the Voice and Transformation
Possibility, Performance, Politics: On the Voice and Transformation
复制标题
可能性、表现、政治：论声音与转型
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Mickey Vallee
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mickey Vallee
基于他的超我内化理论，即惩罚主体未能完成不可能的任务，声音成为西格蒙德·弗洛伊德臭名昭著的“谈话疗法”的媒介和思想。他和约瑟夫·布鲁尔（Joseph Breuer）一起遇到了一种歇斯底里的症状，后来他认为这是歇斯底里的决定性线索，当女性患者失去所有说话的能力时，他们认为这代表着她们的关系能力陷入了僵局：一个失落的声音将代表一个被分析者内在的自我形象和外在的文明形象之间的“关系僵局”，这种内在的理解将随之出现根本不相容。然而，如果被分析者在一个临床情境下重新发现他们的共鸣，在这个情境中，他们向他们的分析师解释了被压抑的创伤，那么声音的丧失被认为是可以恢复的：病人因此通过他们的声音的恢复而被“释放”。然而，恢复的结果是，被分析者对他们内心世界的理解发生了根本性的重组。因此，弗洛伊德得出结论，声音丧失表现为关系丧失，将声音概念化为分析的对象，症状，原因和治疗。声音作为具体化和异化的联系（一种“声音异化假说”）的精神分析主题在当代文化精神分析中找到了最受保护的地位，最近被姆拉登·多拉尔（Mladen Dolar）辩护为主体构成的异化和矛盾的组成部分。多拉尔将声音描述为一个“不可能的物体”，它将内部和外部分开，但在这种分裂之间保持着一个中介的地位，最终将它们连接起来，同时将它们彼此切断。根据其他精神分析基础的人的说法，声音对产生它的身体来说是自主的，同时最终对身体的否定负责，被提升为米歇尔·席翁称之为“声学的”的主观性幽灵：寻找主体的声音。因此，由声音提供的那种“说话”，回到Dolar，是一种普遍的腹语术。多拉尔听到的声音是一个“身体导弹，它从身体中分离出来，四处传播”，同时暗示身体的重要性，胃，肠道，胸部，喉咙，喉，舌头，嘴和呼吸，同时进入一个与听众接近的区域，禁止精确地了解这些细节。
Based in his theory of superego internalization, which punishes the subject for failing to accomplish impossible tasks, the voice became both the medium and the idea for Sigmund Freud’s notorious ‘talking cure’. He encountered, with Joseph Breuer, a symptom of hysteria which he later regarded as its defining cue, when female patients would lose all capacity to voice, which they regarded as a representation of an impasse in their capacity for relation: a lost voice would come to represent a ‘relational impasse’ between an analaysand’s inner image of self and an external image of civilization with which this internal understanding would appear radically incompatible. Voice loss, however, was considered recoverable, should the analysand rediscover their resonance under a clinical context in which they accounted for repressed traumas to their analyst: the patient was thus ‘freed’ by the return of their voice. The result of the recovery was, however, a radical reorganization in the analysand’s understanding of their inner world. Freud, therefore, concluded that voice loss manifested a relational loss, conceptualising the voice as at once an object of analysis, the symptom, cause and cure. This psychoanalytic theme of the voice as the nexus of embodiment and estrangement (a ‘voice estrangement hypothesis’) finds its most protected position in contemporary cultural psychoanalysis, defended recently by Mladen Dolar as an alienated and ambivalent component of subject constitution. Dolar describes voice as an ‘impossible object’ which divides the interior and exterior, yet maintains a position as a mediator between this division, ultimately bridging them while cutting them from one another. The voice is, according to others who share in the psychoanalytic foundation, at once autonomous to the body that produces it while responsible ultimately for that body’s negation, exalted as a specter of subjectivity that Michel Chion has termed ‘acousmatic’: a voice in search of a subject. Thus, the kind of ‘speaking’ that is proffered by the voice, to return to Dolar, is one of a pervasive ventriloquism. Dolar hears the voice as a ‘bodily missile which separates itself from the body and spreads around’, all the while alluding to the interiority of the body, the stomach, gut, chest, throat, larynx, tongue, mouth and breath while entering into a zone of proximity with the listener which forbids knowing those details precisely.