JULIA KRISTEVA

Exit

Get Adobe Flash player

 

 

Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

Julia Kristeva, vidéoconférence pour Nankin, 10 juin 2012

au colloque Le féminisme et la Chine, Nanjing University 南京大学

réalisation : G.K. Galabov & Sophie Zhang (60 min)

 

 

 

My encounters with Chinese women

Julia Kristeva

 

translated by Violaine Morin

 


 

Sophie Zhang : Julia Kristeva, before talking about feminism and China, I would like to remind everyone of your early interest in this country, namely your Chinese language studies, your visit to China in 1974, your book About Chinese women and your recent visit in 2009. You created an "International Simone de Beauvoir Prize for women's freedom", and awarded it to two Chinese women in 2010.

 

Julia Kristeva : Yes, thank you for reminding us of this short - and already long - story. I first want to give my regards to all the women - and the men! I suppose there might be some - who participate in this conference "China and feminism", hosted by Nanjing University, and to all of those who helped organizing this virtual encounter.

But, as you said, my encounter with China is nothing virtual. My first steps on this continent were indeed in May 1974. We were, I think, the first delegation of intellectuals from the western world to visit China after its entry into the United Nations. I was with Philippe Sollers, Roland Barthes, François Wahl and Marcelin Pleynet. In those days, our Chinese friends called us the "Tel Quel comrades".

I would like to specify something very important to me, regarding how we regard any interest for China in the western world. It was often said that we - but it might be the case for others  - were fervent supporters of a certain ideology that was in force at that time. I think it is more complicated than that. Me and I believe my friends and colleagues, who were part of this delegation were profoundly intrigued by Chinese civilization as well as by the political changes that were occurring at that time, and I am still intrigued by them now. To have a better understanding of the Chinese phenomenon, the historical phenomenon we were going through, I had enrolled in for four years in a Chinese language class in the Université Paris-VII, in which I still teach today. I was also a very committed reader of a famous encyclopedia that I recommend to all, although those taking part in the conference might know it already. It was the encyclopedia written by the British Joseph Needham, Science and Civilization in China. I was therefore curious about answering at least two questions I'm still preoccupied with, and I think those are situated in the basis of your debates in this conference.

The first of those questions is: if Chinese communism is different from the western versions of communism and socialism, how did cultural tradition and national history contributed to form this enigmatic Chinese voice? My first question is about the relationship of China to its past.

The second question is more directly orientated towards the theme of your conference. It is about how the conception of sexual difference in China, that is to say the male/female split, but also the use of language and writing, the questions of causality, of divinity, of the individual, and - as we'll see later on in the second part of my conference - the conception of body and soul, et cætera, formed a specific human subjectivity that is different from the one formed in the Greek, Jewish and Christian traditions. My point is not to create a hierarchy of civilizations as some do nowadays by saying, "this is good and that is not", but only to state the differences. If such a difference exists, how these subjective experiences (male/female, language/writing) can be encountered and how can we connect with them? In other words:  is there a fundamental opposition between us? Are  these antagonisms? On the contrary, if these differences are co-existing, how can we create a universal humanity built up on the basis of this difference?

As one may notice, all those questions that interested me at that time are not easy. I wasn't able to answer them during my visit that later on became a book, About Chinese women, recently translated into Chinese by my friend, Professor Gao from Tongji University. Then I drifted away from Sinology, and right now I speak to you as a semiologist, a psychoanalyst and a writer. The experience of maternity, the practice of psychoanalysis drove me elsewhere, but that place is not far away from your debates. I am going to come back to the questions I asked myself in 1974 from that point.

You are correct to underline that this interest for China immediately linked my feminism with the questioning of the female condition in China throughout its history. It is because of that and in that specific context that we created the Simone de Beauvoir Prize for Women's freedom. It was created on the hundredth anniversary of the birth of the author of The Second Sex, the great text that opens a new age of feminism in the world. We gave this prize to women who come from what we call "emerging powers". First, the prize was given to women from the Arab-Muslim world, in which the female condition is rather problematic, controlled by a very strong patriarchal and feudal influence. When they claim their freedom, a lot of members of this female continent find themselves mistreated, if not threatened to death, by the well-known charia, the Islamic law. In the context of emerging countries, Chinese women, on the other hand, have a very different fate: they have a legislation that entitles them to their freedom. Even though this legislation is not always applied, Chinese women fight for a better acknowledgment of it. Chinese feminism raises another question, and the point is not to create  Chinese feminism, but to support it, to develop it, and to benefit from mutual enrichment.

The prize was given to two women:

Mrs Guo Jianmei is a lawyer. She is the leader of an NGO, The Women's Legal Research and Service Center. This NGO tries to defend concrete cases, to promote change in the legislative system, to improve the condition of women in China. She fights domestic violence, discriminations at work and sexual harassment. She pushes for reforms on the land ownership in rural areas.

Next to her, there is another woman who fights for women's rights. Her way is different, complementary and to a certain extent more radical: Mrs Ai Xiaoming, professor in the department of Chinese language and literature and director of the comparative literature section in Sun Yat-Sen University of Guangzhou. As an addition to her own academic research on the condition of women and her teaching of history of feminism in addition to her women's rights activism and her defense of immigrant workers, she's also known in China and abroad as a documentary film-maker.

 

In your book About Chinese women, you noticed the modernity of the condition of women in China at the beginning of the 20th century. Do you think women's emancipation that followed the May Fourth Movement in 1919, and was then encouraged by Mao Tse-tung, was a fundamental start from which the difference between western feminism and Chinese feminism grew?

 

Julia Kristeva: It's a very interesting point. I can address two different aspects of this question. I would like to go back to a part of my book About Chinese women, in which I strongly focused on women's rights movements that occurred in the 20th century carried along by the Republic Revolution and the Communist Revolution. I think those movements are rooted in a much more ancient Chinese culture. It dates back to the mythical tradition, let's say the "anthropological tradition", with its tales and rituals made out of a mix of Taoism, Buddhism and Confucianism. I will come back to this aspect at the end of my conference.

I would like to focus on the modernity of the 20th century. The emancipation movements of the Republic and then of Communism, attacking the archaisms of society, must have had to deal with the influence of family, the role of the father as compared to the woman,  sexual freedom and individual freedom. Those revolutions marked an evolution of freedom and legislation, mostly regarding women's rights that are rather special and maybe unique. In any case, this evolution is not well-known in the West. Maybe they are not known enough even in China itself.

I will start with evoking a name that made a great impression on me when I did this research on the achievements of the Republic Revolution and the Communist Revolution in terms of women's rights. This name is Qiu Jin, a hero of women's emancipation, who died in 1907 and who was described by Sun Yat-sen as a "hero among women". I would like to quote a sentence that I found in one of her posthumously published poems, Fighting for the power of women. Here is what she says:

 

"Let the sky give equal power to men and women,

How can we live when we are less than cattle,

We will rise up and fly, yes, we will pull ourselves upwards."

 

This was written in 1907 and it needs to read again and again for all the women who are still unaware of this in the emerging powers. We know - it's beautiful, "We will pull ourselves upwards" - that her daughter, who was raised in the United States, became the first Chinese female pilot. Let's keep this Chinese feminism in mind, because it is the first step of the modernity I want to talk about.

It starts at the very beginning of the Republic of China, established in 1912, under the influence of Suffragettes movements in the West, but also influenced by the fight against feudal and patriarchal society. This movement for women's rights, or women's suffrage movement, had the mission of supporting the republic and promoting gender equality. This promotion was made through different organizations, including the Shanghai Friendly Society for Women's suffrage, the Rearguard Society for Women's Suffrage, the Militant Society for Women, the Women Alliance, the Women Society for Freedom, The Women Citizens Society... It is incredible to historically witness the proliferation of such feminist groups. They gathered in Nanjing on the 29th of February in 1912 to form an alliance and to coordinate the movement. They exposed most of the goals that would be reintroduced later by the May Fourth Movement. Among those goals were - I will say that again so that the entire world hears it, because again, people are not enough aware of this early rise of Chinese feminism - gender equality of rights, higher education for women, abolishment of polygamy and women's trading, freedom in marriage, change in family traditions, and so on. All of these are extremely important, and it is true that those movements surrendered to the agenda of the upper class. They failed to emancipate and to become purely feminist movements. But they gave strength to the upper class movement for global change in society, even though they didn't become specifically female movements. Of course, despites their existence, the provisional constitution voted on the 11th of May 1912 didn’t mention this guarantee of gender equality. It was clear that a lot of resistance from men would prevent this emergence.

The other thing that strikes me - and I would like it to be written in memories as something spectacular - is the burst of anger of those feminists and suffragettes. When they understood that their demands would not be granted, they broke into the room were the assembly was sitting, they broke the windows while jostling the guards. The Chinese and western public were stunned. Everyone was shocked. It is something important that we will always need to be aware of.

From this period, I would like to underline something that was first brought to my attention by a great feminist from the sixties, Roxane Witke: the nine articles written by Mao Tse-tung on women's condition and specifically on women's suicide. It's interesting because it shows to what extent the legislation is not only a matter of change at the surface of society, but that it rises from a true concern of the individual fate, the condition of the person, even though this individual dimension doesn't always show. Why? Because we know Mao himself suffered during his childhood from a father who was a common Confucian farmer and who wanted to force him at the age of 13 into an arranged marriage. To protest against this situation, Mao attempted to commit suicide, or at least he threatened to commit suicide. We also know that, after leaving the family house, he married a few years later Yang Kaihui, the daughter of Mao's philosophy professor Yang Changji at a secondary school in Changsha. Yang Changji was a liberal, a fervent supporter of the May Fourth Movement ideas. He had written an article that had drawn attention on the reform of the family institution in China. He opposed to the Chinese family the British family, and committed himself into changing the reactionary and repressive system of the patriarchal family. Mao was rather impressed by this movement in Chinese upper class, and he created a New People's Study Society (Xinmin Xuehui) with his friends in 1917. The society wanted to fight prostitution, concubinage and abuses from the domestic power. There was a true mobilization around the idea that reforming women's condition was a prerequisite to the reform of society itself. The reason why I'm particularly interested in this movement is that in order to give support to women in this fight for change in society and family, they created programs of study in France. They wanted to send young Chinese women to study in France, and they did. And it was the case of one of the founders' sister, who became the first president of the Chinese Women's Union after the Liberation. There is therefore a strong continuity from the suffragettes' movement to the nationalist movement and the women who emancipated themselves within this circle of influence and then the young Mao's works on suicide, and the aftermath of the New Marriage Law that was formed starting from the 30's.

In 1974, when we went to China, it was the time of the Great Step Forward: people's discussions, but also articles in the press focused less on the suppression of the family system - which was the case of this previous Maoist anarchism - than on the creation of a new democratic family structure. So the concern about organizing the family structure and acknowledging the legal rights of the women's work force was very important. It was about remunerating the worker and the housewife, and about supporting women so that they would work their way up to executive positions. At the same time, the opinion would regret that it was not the case. All of that shows how much everyone including the State power was committed into the promotion of women, trying to fight previous resistance inherited from the patriarchal hierarchy. From now on, policies would promote economical, financial and educational equality between men and women, resulting in the creation of new female figures who would have all possible powers.

This process is absolutely fascinating, and a great part of the western feminism would see itself in this egalitarianism. But one might ask: in that context, don't we lose the sexual difference and an existing Chinese tradition carried throughout history in daily life, in sexual relations, in the education of the children, in maternity rituals, where the Taoist mentality and the sexual duality related to the concept of yin and yang are strongly affirmed? In other words, against the development of male characteristics and the growing manliness of the female, it seems that a greater complexity and the polyphony of the female subject is now expressed in an increasingly flexible society. This society has started from the beginning of the 21st century to reinforce another form of femininity that is more focused on individuality, and creativity, rather than simply being worried about having the same rights and recognition as men.

 

The meeting of the western world with China is the major event of the third millennium. What does the greatest psychoanalyst in the world think about the encounter of psychoanalysis and China?

 

Julia Kristeva: I think another perspective can be opened precisely with regard to those great movements of women's emancipation who lead Chinese women to demand (and sometimes achieve) the same social status as men. This perspective is made possible by a better knowledge of human sciences that progressed in the West since the end of the 19th century, and especially psychoanalysis.

To conclude the subject of the emancipation movement that started at the very beginning of the 20th century up to Mao's thought and the Great Step Forward, I would like to draw your attention to a fact highlighted by Mao: "Times have changed, men and women are equal. Whatever men can achieve, women can achieve too." Obviously, a large portion of the improvements that this statement entails hasn’t been reached. But also, is it the goal of the women to become equal to men? Do equal rights threaten a difference that is altogether sexual, at the level of sensitivity and creativity? A difference that gives all its richness to the encounter of men and women?

I now would like to to address those questions in the last part of what I'm bringing to you today. Beyond the question of civil rights, equality at work and in executive positions, I would like to scrutinize the particularity, the specificity of the woman as a subject. Freud's thoughts on the matter can be useful. I would like to draw the attention of the audience to a thread that is maybe a little harder to follow, but maybe closer to our daily life experience. Your question brings me to this more thorough examination: what is the role of feminism? Is it a question of making sure that women are like men, or is it a true anthropological revolution, as I was trying to say when celebrating Simone De Beauvoir's hundredth anniversary? This revolution would enable us to open the question of what is being a woman, to understand the complexity of this experience in different cultures, and to transform the male/female relationship, the family structure itself and the social bond. I think there is here a much more ambitious goal. The history of Chinese feminism supports this goal we identified in our analysis: it tells us to maintain our standing more strongly than ever in the fight for civil rights, but also to go further in affirming than behind the civil rights there are civilizations.

The globalized world fosters its different civilizations: we should try to examine them thoroughly in order to identify their particularities that are present in every human being. I would call the important issues that feminism enables us to discuss the necessity of carrying on globalization as a real transvaluation of cultural memories. The expression is borrowed from Nietzsche. "Transvaluate" cultural memories imply knowing them first. When it comes to China, it means knowing Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism and the role of women in all those experiences, and how those notions are manifested in everyone's behavior, sometimes involuntarily. I would therefore argue that feminism has a major and radical role to play in the process of transvaluation. The emergence of China and modern Chinese feminism demand that we deepen and radicalize this transvaluation. How? By grounding our understanding of social sciences and specifically psychoanalysis with it's current expansions. But why psychoanalysis?

I told you about my trip to China and my contribution to feminism in terms of women's rights. But I owe you another confession about psychoanalysis and my implications in it. My four years of study in Chinese language did not make me a Sinologist at all. I'm not a specialist of China. And even as a psychoanalyst, I had only two Chinese analysands, a man and woman, born in France to Chinese parents, perfectly Occidentalized, and who didn't talk Mandarin except on rare occasions. They could only partially relate to Chinese tradition. I think they represent something I would rather call "polyphonic personalities produced by globalization" than modern Chinese citizens.

However, if I accepted your invitation to deepen the role of international feminism today, despite its modest contact with the Chinese continent, it is first because the semiologist, the philosopher, the psychoanalyst and the woman I am couldn't imagine the great challenge that the confrontation of Chinese culture and European Culture would represent. This challenge is much more complex than the economical, financial, military and political challenges. It is a cultural challenge. I also firmly believe that the dialogue between people coming from the Chinese culture and people coming from the Greek, Jewish and Christian cultures can be possible through psychoanalysis. This is because it has a special unique and decisive position among social sciences.

As the Europeans philosophers throughout history witnessed, this poses a great

challenge. I will quote only one of them: Blaise Pascal, a great philosopher and mathematician from the 17th century, who said in his Thoughts: "Which is the more credible of the two, Moses or China? It is not a question of seeing this summarily. I tell you there is in it something to blind, and something to enlighten. We must put the papers on the table", which means we need to get into the knowledge of the texts themselves to answer the question: "Moses or China?". It is a very condensed and provocative formulation. When he says "Moses", he probably thinks about the Greek, Jewish and Christian traditions that crystallize in the name "Moses", around the concept of identity and unity of the human being. He was probably thinking about the word of Elohim to Moses in Exodus, then used again by Jesus: "I am who I am", or "I will be what I will be". The question "Who am I?" constituted the main question in western philosophy. Later on, Freud will continue in his own way, by putting the individual who is engulfed in this anxiety, "Who I am", on the divan and by asking him or her "tell me how you love".  As you can see, I'm taking bold short-cuts to lead you to the idea that the question of being and the question of singularity: "being" and "Who I am" are not fundaments of the Chinese thought. The Chinese thought doesn't question the foundation or the origin. We are therefore facing a discrepancy that is hard to resolve. Is there a possible encounter between the western world focused on the "I" and "Who am I?", and the Chinese thought which doesn't use these notions? Is this an insoluble opposition, or are there possible connections? Indeed, in the triple configuration of Taoism, Confucianism and Buddhism, the Chinese thought is not based on the "being" and the "I", but on something that sinologist have started to call a "uniting processive fluid", that feeds and enriches life.

So is there an encounter between the West and China, on the questions of the personhood as well as freedom and truth? Of course the question of sexual identity is always implied in these different fields.

I remember that during our trip in China in 1974 with Philippe Sollers and Roland Barthes, we were shown archeological evidences of matriarchy in ancient China with great pride. In the Sian area where the excavations were made, they showed two-stage funeral rituals: first, a moment of separate mourning for each sex, then the disposal of the grandmother's mortal remains in the middle, surrounded by the members of the family. This was an evidence for the existence of matriarchy. Since 1974, a lot of progresses have been made in this direction. Recent anthropological researches draw our attention to an ethnic minority, still living in modern China at the frontier of Yunnan and Sichuan provinces. They are the Na, a community where most of the time people don't marry. Since there's no marriage, there's no father, not even social ones. We are here in another dimension, different from Confucian strictness embodied in the law code centered on the father and masculine ancestors; we're in a society where people are not individuals but agents whose social bond is made by women. There is not even a word to say "father" or "husband". The communities are formed by a matriline that descended from a common female ancestor. They are divided in groups of brothers and sisters who live under the same roof and raise children together. Men come to visit women. Still today, in a Na village, a room of the house is dedicated to the woman who will be visited - not by a man, but by the "rain" or the "wind" of a visitor. One may notice that it is the man who is the object of exchange here, and not even the man himself but his semen. Incest remains a strict taboo between blood relatives of the same house. One may notice here the maternal hold, and the vital importance attributed to the male semen seems to be underlying a rich variety of erotic techniques found in Taoism.

The idea of a body I have in mind is not individual but composed of fragments. These are the parts of the body, genitals, and also sensory organs, all directly connected to the Taoist fluid that is to say to the Cosmos. Those fragments lead to extraordinary experiences of pleasure and enjoyment, which would correspond to mystical ecstasies in our western system. What I have in mind is the union of breath, the internal alchemy and all the compendiums of sexual rituals in Taoism as told by the Book of the Yellow Castle. They describe an erotic choreography, giving details about matings where the partners seek an absolute abandonment, the absence of thoughts, the coming back to an embryonic state and the in utero relation to the mother. This alchemy is described as an immersion in the Tao, where the jin and jang give birth to each other. All of this echoes Lao-Tse, who mentions the body of an old child that anyone can re-build without a father, but by becoming one's own mother in a regressive climax that is considered as an access to eternal life. We are here in a dimension where incest is not really forbidden, where the body is fragmented, the sexuality challenges death by the fantasy of a return to the matrilineal memory, through the fantasy of the in utero life without the father. It is the reverse side of patriarchal society and monotheism itself. In this context, one may also see the foot binding as the reverse side of the biblical circumcision of the male sex where the woman is punished for the compelling pleasure of the feminine jin. This fluidity and extravagant enjoyment of the fragmented and bisexual body, challenges the taboos in the absence of any legal and paternal barrier. It will then be the mission of the Confucian cult to try to impose strict religious rules and rituals. The feudal and patriarchal structure controls the expression of the Taoist, fragmented and cosmic body.

Lacan has recently analyzed this pleasure, with two new extensions. First, he explains that this pleasure can leave us unmoved, and it is possible that we won't comprehend our own pleasure. Then he connects it to a perverse experience close to the innocent ecstasy of the polymorph narcissistic on the verge of psychosis. There might be here a new field of research for the permanent deconstruction and reconstruction of the male/female couple, and for the possible future reorganizations of this dyad that the 20th century foresaw. I mention the legendary excesses of Taoist sexuality in this perspective. In a more covert, pre-conscious or unconscious way, these processes seem to be present in the modern Chinese novel and cinema. They seem to show the excesses and the audacities of the psychosexual experience in the male/female couple. The certitude of having a psychosexual duality and an unashamed bisexuality comes from it. This duality is not only a psychic one, because body and soul mingle in the processual life. It happens in a much more marked, violent, maybe brave and risky way than in other cultures, especially the Christian West dominated by the patrilineal figure.

We are the observers of these excesses through the Chinese modern cinema and literature. They carry on the impression that these excesses inhabit a traditional procreative Chinese couple, by attributing a central importance to the female pleasure, and by stimulating the desire of procreation that is dampened by the economical constraints which force each family into producing only one child. For the major part of the population, a couple has an affirmed psychosexual bisexuality but it maintains by appearances a clear male/female split. However, our life of pleasure leads us to a sexual intensity that is at the center of the social bond, at the center of the couple. In the modern world this structure based on procreation seems to be the most powerful structure for the continuity of mankind, as opposed to the biblical couple as it is performed by Jewish people. We are now talking about two different models of procreation that feminism should analyze very carefully. The Jewish and the Chinese structure, throughout their history and in their current reincarnations. I emphasize the loss of inhibitions surrounding the physical and biblical bisexuality for Chinese women as it is shown in Chinese cinema and literature.

What are the conclusions a feminist or anyone could draw from this quick outline of the main examples of the cultural difference between Moses and China? I think the first thing one should notice is that psychoanalysis itself starts to appropriate the processivity of the Chinese world, the fluidity of identities, male/female, body/soul, language/tone, sense/significance, writing/speech. I will give you a few examples.

Modern psychoanalysis undertakes a very important task in mother-child relationship. My personal research also focuses on this field. For instance, in classical Freudianism the mother wasn't a very developed object of investigation. Winnicott made great progresses in this direction. But after Heidegger and Freud, and especially after Lacan, I consider the mother not to be an object for the child in the extent that there's a separation between subject and object. She rather has the status that modern psychoanalysis will call the status of a thing, that is to say, an entity that is not yet separated from the subject, and that the child uses, that is his possession. It is an extremely tight bond. I recently called it a reliance. The reliance can take the shape of a great violence and repulsion. Who doesn't know the anger children are capable of, the violent hold of the mother on her objects? But it can also become a sublimation. On the movement carrying sublimation the separation from the mother can be built up. This reliance can then become a permanent sublimation between body and soul. The poet, the mystic, are situated in this process of reliance. On the contrary, the psychotic is situated in the violent form of reliance and so is the audacious writer, who will explore abjection, repulsion and the violence between the non-me-yet and the non-other-yet. The dramatic writing about the mother-child relationship in the works of Céline seems to embody this exploration. In other words, on the topic of the mother-child relationship, modern psychoanalysis works towards a better understanding of a processsivity that is specific to the Chinese culture. It doesn't necessarily means that we're becoming Chinese. But it enables us to have a better understanding of the Chinese world and of elements that stayed unknown and under-estimated in the psyche of the western individual.

Another example to show this time how the progresses of western thought can help the Chinese individual. I refer to the case of a Chinese scholar, an important figure today in France who was my Chinese professor when I tried to achieve a few modest skills in this field. He was praising the adaptive vitality of this permanent processivity in Chinese thought. Until a time when he became depressed and told me this sentence that I will never forget: "When depression seizes me, I have no resort. I miss only one object, another object to invest, someone to believe in." In other words, the absence of a separation between me and the other, the absence of the processes of reflection and conceptualization of otherness that Greek, Jewish and Christian thoughts gave us, appeared to him as something he missed. And looking for this other pole separated from him, that would therefore be out of processivity, and to which he could rely on to commit with it and believe in it, he was facing a dilemna: "I can either, he would say, convert to Catholicism or lie on the divan." I think it is a dilemma that a person coming from the Chinese world can experience today. I was told that the temptation of western religions and spirituality is rather strong in a certain class, probably a westernized class that is becoming bigger and bigger in China. What is the possible position of monotheist religions in the Chinese world? There is also the attraction, the temptation and the seduction that psychoanalysis created among young Chinese people.

One last word to show the answer psychoanalysis gives to forms of discontents such as depression, such as sexual difference as we experience it in the West. What is the answer we can give, and how can we be efficient? My last example is something I experienced after giving a conference in Beijing on Female Genius. I was praising the emancipation of Chinese women, when a young man stood up and told me: "Madam, but who is going to save us from women? We as men are rejected. We have no other choice but domestic violence or homosexuality to protect us." Of course, I understand that the valorization I gave earlier to bisexuality doesn't necessarily give access to a singular pleasure. This interior alchemy praised by Taoist texts, with the polymorph and ecstatic pleasure that I mentioned before, can't replace the violence of accessing otherness that the modern individual seeks, and that psychoanalysis enables us to understand.

If there is a gap between the Chinese world and the western world, there are also interior processes within the European world, specifically in writing, sublimation, the arts and music, which get close to Chinese processivity. I have specifically Colette in mind, and her book The Pure and the impure. She glorifies a primary female homosexuality. She portrays it as a sort of heaven, through the couple of the two ladies of Llangollen. They are not described as two lesbians who go against taboos, but as a mother-daughter incest exempted of any guilt, experienced as an infantile return. It is the exact contrary of homosexuality described by Proust himself as an accursed race. Here, we're under the reign of innocence, without guilt. Colette can therefore be described as a Taoist wise man, one that nourishes himself with the mother. Marguerite Yourcenar, our French writer who might be known in China, may have had a sense of that when she said that Colette was "as complicated as old China". Moreover, a lot of novels from Philippe Sollers that mix infantile and incestuous are close to this Taoist pleasure. The book Corps d'enfance, corps chinois, Philippe Sollers et la Chine, by Jean-Michel Lou, indicates that.

I tried to draw your attention, on the one hand, on a few patterns where China and its culture use western concepts and particularly psychoanalysis to face psychic difficulties. On the other hand, the evolution of western philosophic thought but also western literature towards processivity in which the Chinese "life nourishment" is shining with polymorph narcissism, and ecstatic stage that are socialized and not experienced as a pathology but as a part of the daily life. All of this shows that our encounter is possible.

But it implies many things. I'm now talking to the feminists attending this conference. It implies that we, western feminists, will try to learn as much as possible your tradition, either Taoism, Buddhism or Confucianism, your political history and your ongoing fights for women's rights. Then we will be able to try to change our own concepts in our work on transvaluation and deconstruction of western metaphysics.

On your side, it implies that you will not only be feminists who copy western concepts of feminism, but that you will become more and more aware of your own tradition, that you will accept it and familiarize yourselves with it. It implies that you analyze it by using the conceptual tools that western social sciences and philosophy can provide you, but by enriching them in your own way.

It is the only way to truly know the gap and the diversity, and therefore to be able to build a link between the two. In this context, feminism won't be only a form of militancy, but a long-term anthropological research. A cruel but fertile research that will open up new horizons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

我与中国女性的相遇

南京大学“女性主义与中国”研讨会

朱莉娅·克里斯蒂娃视频发言

黄荭

 

 

 

 

 

Julia Kristeva

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sophie Zhang: 朱莉娅·克里斯蒂娃,在谈“女性主义与中国”之前,我想先提一下,您很早就对中国萌发了浓郁的兴趣,您学过中文,1974年第一次访华,随后出版了《中国妇女》,最近于2009年又重访中国。您创立了一个国际“西蒙娜·德·波伏瓦妇女自由奖”,2010年,您更把这个奖项颁给两位中国女性。

 

Julia Kristeva:是的,谢谢您提醒我这一段小小的,又已经久远的历史。我想要首先致意参与南京大学“女性主义与中国”研讨会的全体女性与男性,也感谢所有为这次网上的“虚拟相遇”作出贡献的女性和男性。但就像您刚才所说,我同中国的相遇可一点儿也不“虚”,就在19745月,我第一次实实在在地踏上这个“大陆”。我们似乎是自中国加入联合国后首个来华访问的西方知识分子代表团,同行的有菲利普·索莱尔斯、罗兰·巴特、弗朗索瓦·瓦尔、马瑟兰·普莱耐。当时的中国友人都称呼我们“原样派”小组的同志们。

那么,我明确地说一下在我看来很重要的一件事儿。说起对中国的兴趣在西方所激起的“反响”,通常人们只会提到“我们”,但其实还有别人,我们算是当时流行的某种意识形态的无条件支持者。我认为事情本身要复杂得多,我被中国文化(显然还有那个时代所发生的政治动荡)深深吸引,好奇不已,此后也一直如此,我想我的同事、我的朋友们也和我一样,他们也是代表团的成员。为了更好地理解这一现象,中国现象,也是(和西方世界不同)另一版本的历史现象,我当时在巴黎七大注册攻读了四年的中文学士学位,七大也一直是,直到今天依然是我的学校。当时我也很迷一本(关于中国的)著名的百科全书,这本书,我推荐给大家,不过,在座的各位想必都已经读过,这本“中国百科全书”,便是英国学者李约瑟的著作《中国的科学与文化》(即《中国科学技术史》)。

因此,我就很好奇,想要阐释清楚至少两个一直以来萦绕在我脑海中的问题,我想它们也是这场研讨会的一个大背景。第一个问题如下:倘若中国共产主义不同于西方共产主义和社会主义,那么,中国的文化传统和民族历史又是如何缔造这一谜样的“中国式道路”的?这是第一个问题,是一个回顾,和过去相关。第二个问题跟和你们的研讨会的主题更为契合,也就是尝试明白中国的性别差异的观念,即指男性和女性的关系,也关乎语言和书写的运用,还有(中国人的)因果观、神灵观、个体观等问题,之后在我视频发言的第二部分,我还会谈到灵魂、身体等观念,当然,还有女性和男性的观念。

(中国人的)观念里已形成一种特殊的“人的主体性”,和希腊、犹太及基督教传统所滋养的西方人的主体性不同。即便确实存在这样一种差异,也不是要在文化之间划分等级,这一个好一些,那一个不够好,而不过是指出彼此的差异而已。倘若,确实存在这样一种差异,这一特殊层次上的差异,那么,女性和男性之间的主体经验,我再说一次,还有语言和书写等等(如上所述),这些经验又如何与我们相遇,我们怎样才能和这些“经验”进行交流?也就是说,我们是否是对立的?是冲突还是“并存”?由此出发,我们如何才能基于这种差异性来建构一种普遍的人性?

所以,你们也看到,所有这些当时困扰我的问题,可一点儿也不简单,在中国之行的期间,我也没能厘清这些问题,不过这趟旅程倒是催生了一本著作,也就是《中国妇女》,已有中文译本,最近刚出版,译者是我的朋友同济大学的高教授 。不过,在访问中国之后,我渐渐脱离了汉学界,今天,和你们说话的是作为符号学家、精神分析学家和作家的我,为人母的经历、精神分析的种种实践,将我带往别处,而这一“别处”对于你们也不陌生,并没有远离你们的关注点。也正是从“别处”出发,我尝试重新思考1974年自己所提出的那些问题。

您强调得很正确,对中国的兴趣很快就让我把我的女性主义思想跟我对整个中国历史中女性(身份、地位)状况的追问联系在一起。也是基于此,在这一情境中,我们创建了“西蒙娜·德·波伏瓦妇女自由奖”,当时正值《第二性》的作者诞辰一百周年,这是一本伟大的书,它在世界范围内开创了女性主义的一个新阶段。我们把这个奖颁给一些来自于人称“崛起的国度”的女性,第一届的奖我们颁给了阿拉伯和穆斯林世界的一些女性,在她们身上,女性的地位依旧很成问题,她们也屈从于一种非常强烈的父权制和封建思想的影响,这片女性的大地上有不少女性代表,当她们提出自由的要求,不是受到虐待,就受到死亡的威胁,这一切都拜著名的伊斯兰教教规所赐。在这一我很关注的背景下,在这种“崛起的国度”情境中,中国女性倒是拥有一种截然不同的命运,因为法律允许她们要求自由,尽管这条法律并不总是得到落实,她们在为让大家认同这条法律而斗争。因此,伴随着中国女性主义而涌现的是另一种问题,它不在于“激发”,和我们在阿拉伯世界所尝试的事情不一样,而在于鼓励,在于发展,在于我们相互充实和丰富。

“西蒙娜·德·波伏瓦奖”也曾授予两位中国女性,其中一位是郭建梅女士,她是一名律师,也是一个名为“(北京大学法学院)妇女法律研究与服务中心”的非政府组织的负责人,这个非政府组织尝试为一些具体个案做辩护,试着推动立法机构的变革,力图改善中国女性的(生存)境况,郭建梅女士为反对家庭暴力、反对劳动领域的歧视、反对性骚扰而斗争,她也试着(推动)改革乡村的土地制度。另一位是艾晓明女士,中国语言文学系的教授,广东中山大学比较文学(与世界文学教研室)主任,她也在为自由而斗争,以她自己不同的方式,也是一种补充的方式,某种程度上也更为激进。除了对女性状况的学术研究之外,她也致力于女性主义史、女性权利的争取、移民劳动力等(问题的探究),她的一些(独立)纪录片,让她在中国和外国都很有名。

Sophie Zhang : 在《中国妇女》一书中,您提到二十世纪初中国女性境况的“现代性”、妇女的解放归功于1919年五四运动资产阶级革命,随后也归功于共产党特别是毛泽东的作用。您是否认为,您是否认为这是西方女性主义和中国女性主义的根本区别?

Julia Kristeva:这是个很有意思的问题,我想分两个时期来讲。首先,请允许我回到拙著《中国妇女》一书中部分内容,我在书中坚持一个观点,那就是20世纪中国妇女解放运动是在资产阶级革命和共产主义革命的基础上发展起来的,并且,我也认为这些运动,稍后我会详细分析,植根于更加久远的中国文化里,可以追溯到神秘的传统中去,即那些人类学传统,那些道教佛教和儒家传统下的传说和仪式。

我今天的访谈也会以这一层面的讨论作为结尾, 我想强调的是,20世纪的这场现代化运动,以推翻旧社会为目标的资产阶级解放运动以及后来的共产主义运动,必然会触及家长制度 父权、女性在家庭中的地位、性自由、个人自由,在个人自由和司法自由迈出了一大步,尤其是在法律方面成绩卓著,或许是史无前例的,但是西方社会,甚至是中国社会内部,却对此了解不深。

首先我想提到一个人的名字,在我研究资产阶级革命和共产主义革命中妇女解放这一议题的时候,这个人给我留下非常深刻的印象,她就是秋瑾。秋瑾是妇女解放运动中的女英雄,她于1907年英勇就义,孙中山称她为“巾帼英雄”。我想引用她死后发表的一首诗中的一句,诗的题目叫《勉女权歌》 ,其中写道,“那女平权天赋就,岂甘居牛后。愿奋然自拔,一洗从前羞耻垢。”这首诗作于1907年,她就义的那年。直到今天,应该说那些在“崛起的国度”中的女性都很难有这样的意识,“愿奋然自拔”是非常美好的境界。秋瑾的女儿是在美国受的教育,之后成为了中国第一位女飞行。我刚刚提到的在1912年成立的资产阶级共和国的建国之始的这场妇女运动便标志着妇女解放的开端,首先是受到了西方妇女争取参政运动的影响,但同时也带有反封建、反父权的性质。

这场争取妇女权益的运动,又被称为“女权运动”、“参政运动”,它的目标在于支持共和国政府,要求女人拥有和男人同等的选举权。我想列举几个当时的有代表性的妇女团体,“上海女子参政同志会” 、“女子后援会”、“尚武会”、“女子同盟会”、“女国民联合会”等等,值得高兴的是,这些如雨后春笋般蓬勃发展的妇女团体,在1912122号,在民主共和国的首都南京集会,就在你们那里,组成了一个同盟会,并明确提出在五四运动过后需要落实的一些原则。我想列举她们制定的一些原则,我再次援引,以使得全世界还不够了解这些最早的妇女运动的突破的人知道,在1919年,中国女权运动发起者们要求男女权力的平等,比如受高等教育的权利,废除一夫多妻制度,废除妇女买卖,要求婚姻自主以及改变家庭旧习俗等等。

所有的这一切都极其重要。的确,这些运动都是在资产阶级的政策之下进行的,并不具备纯粹的女权运动的性质,但是它们把这股潮流带进了资产阶级革命中去了,以便进行彻底的社会改革而不是单纯的女权运动。这些运动,尽管呼声很高,1912年表决通过的临时宪法并未保障男女平等,很显然,很多男性会反对这些决议。而让我感到震惊的是,我也希望这震撼人心的一幕能保留在人们的记忆之中,那就是,这些女权主义者,这些争取参政权的女性们因为她们的情愿没能实现而愤怒不已,涌进了立法大厅,砸碎了玻璃,推倒了门卫。当时,无论是中国国内还是西方社会都为之震惊。所有人都对此有深刻的印象,它的深远意义远不是今天能尽述的。

我还想提一下这一时期,1919年前后,20世纪60年代的一位女权主义者罗克萨娜·维特克曾特别指出毛泽东写过的9篇关于妇女现状特别是妇女自杀情况的文章。这很有意思,因为这些文章恰好可以证明立法改变的不仅仅是处于社会层面的体制问题,而且也引起了人们对于个体命运的真正的忧虑,尽管这一方面的意义直到今天都迟迟没有显现。

为什么?因为毛泽东在13岁的时候也曾经被他的父亲,一个深受儒家思想影响的中农,给他安排了一个包办婚姻,为了反抗父亲的强权,他曾经尝试过自杀。我们知道也许他当时并不是真正的自杀,但确实当时是以自杀相逼的。我们还知道,毛泽东离开家之后,娶了一位名叫杨开慧的女子。

杨开慧的父亲是毛泽东在长沙师范学院的哲学老师杨昌济的女儿。杨昌济是个思想自由的知识分子,也是五四思想的支持者和倡导者。他曾经写过关于中国家庭改革的文章,用英国家庭体制来驳斥中国当时的家庭制度,并且积极地改变父系家庭制度中落后的压迫人的一面。这种在中国资产阶级中已经悄然兴起的趋势影响了毛泽东,于是在1917年,他和几个朋友创立了新民学会,学会的宗旨是反对嫖妓、反对纳妾、反对滥用家长的权力。也就是说要动员大家进一步改革正在变革的社会,改变妇女的命运,我对这种社会变化非常感兴趣,因为,为了鼓励女性为改变社会和家庭状况而斗争,这些年轻人计划去法国深造,并且愿意送年轻的中国女性去法国学习。正好我们谈到过的一位学会的创始人的妹妹就是这种情况,解放后她成了中国妇联的第一任主席。因而,在妇女参政运动、国民党的民族主义运动和在这种社会转变中自我解放的妇女所拥有的地位之间存在着极大的连续性。年轻的毛泽东和关于自杀的文章,及其从30年代起他在江西井冈山苏维埃共和国政府开展的工作,新婚姻法很快被制定出来。

我们来到中国的时候是1974年,还在大跃进时期 ,我们周围人们的议论和报刊杂志上的文章都更强调要建立一个新的民主家庭而不是取消家庭,而这也是后毛泽东时代的无政府主义的状况。因而,调整并且在法律上重视家庭和女性工作能力是很重要的,问题是要平衡家庭主妇和女性工作者之间的关系,尤其要促使女性得到提升走上领导岗位。但很遗憾的是,事与愿违。

现在我来结束这部分的思考,这一切标明,包括国家权力在内,都对促进女性反抗以前从男权等级制度中遗留下来的各种阻碍表现出了关注,从这点出发,人们会朝着促进男女经济、财政同样还有教育平等的方向前进,这将会培养出拥有所有权利的女性。这绝对是令人神往的,西方大多数的女性主义在这种男女一致平等的诉求中看到了共性。我们可以提这样一个问题:从这个观点来看,我们会不会抹煞性别上的差异,还有中国延续至今的在日常生活、两性关系、孩子教育、母性文化、道教的风尚和阴阳调和的思想中的概念?

换言之,在一个灵活多变的社会,从21世纪初就凸显出另一种女性特质,它更加注重女性的个性、创造性,而不是单纯追求男女是否拥有同样的权利、是否得到同样的认同,在这样一个社会,要想防止女性的男性化,防止女性变得阳刚,女性主题的多重性和复杂性就体现在这里。就是这样。

Sophie Zhang : 西方世界和中国的相遇是第三个千年的大事,作为世界上最伟大的精神分析学家之一,您认为中国和精神分析学之间这种相遇的前景如何?

Julia Kristeva:女性解放取得了巨大成就促使中国女性去期盼,有时去完成与男人同样的职能,正是联想到这一点,我认为可以从19世纪末起在西方发展起来的人文学科、尤其是精神分析学的角度开启一个研究的新领域。我还是想用毛泽东的一句话来作结,从20世纪初到大跃进时期的妇女解放史都集中体现在毛泽东的这句话中:“时代不同了,男女都一样。男同志能办到的事情,女同志也能办到。”显然在这个方向上,很多目标没有实现。

但是,人们可以提出质疑,女性解放的目的就是要成为男性?权利上的男女平等会不会威胁到两性的差异性,不仅是性别上的,还有在敏感度和创造力上的差异?我还想在这一方面补充一下今天我想对你们所讲内容的最后一部分,除了权利问题,除了工作、领导职位上的平等之外,谈一谈女性的特质和特性。这时候,弗洛伊德的思想应该会对我们大有裨益。现在我想让我们的女性听众来关注这一维度上,可能不那么容易理解,然而却离我们日常的生活更为切近。

你的问题正好让我深化这方面的思考,那么,女性主义扮演着什么角色?是要让所有的女人都和男人一样?还是像我在纪念波伏娃诞辰100周年时所讲的那样,这是一场真正的人类学意义上的革命,让我们可以探讨“女人是什么”这个问题,试图从不同的文化中去理解这一经验的复杂性。

由此尝试去转变男女两性之间的关系,还有他们和家庭、和社会关系,在我看来,前景更加宽广。中国的女性主义发展史激励着我们向这个方向发展,去承担,去要求,比以前更加坚定地为争取权利而斗争。这也告诉我们,在这些权利背后,有各种各样的文化存在。全球化就是随着这些不同的文化的交融而来,我们试着深入了解这些文化,在每个人内心深处的文化沉淀中找到它们。

让我们看一看女性主义让我们思考的一些重要问题,我呼吁有必要经由对文化记忆的真正意义上的“价值重估”(transvaluation)来继续全球化的进程,尼采所谓的对文化记忆的“价值重估”意味着首先要去认识它们、了解它们。对中国而言,就是要去认识道教、佛教、儒教和妇女在所有这些经验中的作用,以及它们是如何在每个人的积习中不知不觉发生作用的。我想说的是,女权运动是“价值重估”运动中不可缺少、激进的一部分。中国的崛起和现代女权主义的兴起要求我们进一步彻底地深入这一价值重复的工作。那么怎么做呢?依托人文科学,大学和能使这一运动得以开展的场所,特别要借助精神分析法及其最新的研究成果。

为什么要用精神分析法?因为之前我已经提到了我的中国之行,我对那场争取妇女权益的女权运动所作出的贡献。还有一个理由与精神分析法以及我对此的研究有关。四年的汉语学习,我开始已经提过了,并没有让我成为一个心理学家、我也不是从精神分析入手研究中国的行家, 我所接触过的精神分析对象中只有两个中国人,一男一女,都是在法国出生,会讲中文,他们已经极为西化了,他们只是偶尔说说中文,部分认同中国的文化传统。在我看来他们比一个现代的普通中国人更能代表全球化背景下涌现出来的一批人,我称之为“多语人”。

但如果说我仍然接受你们的邀请来深入地谈一谈当今全球女权运动对中国的贡献,尽管它和中国大陆的接触很少,那是因为一方面本人作为一个符号学家、哲学家、精神分析学家和女人,我深谙中国文化与西方文化即欧洲文化面对面交流时面临的巨大挑战,这一挑战比经济、财政、军事、政治挑战都要复杂得多。这是文化挑战。

还有一个原因在于我深信精神分析法在人文科学中占据特别的位置,在我看来也许是独特的、决定性的位置。有着中国文化背景的人们和有着西方、希腊、犹太,基督教文化背景的人们之间的对话,这种对话是可以展开的。历史上欧洲的哲学家们知道这一巨大挑战的存在,我只举一个例子,十七世纪的哲学家、数学家布莱斯·帕斯卡在他的《思想录》中写道:“摩西和中国,哪个更可信?草率考虑这一问题是不可取的,这其中有阴影,有光明,应当把书放在桌上,进入并阅读文本,然后再回答这个问题。摩西还是中国?” 这是一个内涵丰富、极具挑战意味的说法。

当他回答“摩西”时,可能联想到的是希腊-犹太-基督教传统,这三种传统围绕人的身份和唯一性的概念集中体现在摩西身上。他可能想到了埃洛因也就是日后的耶稣在摩西出埃及时说的话:“我是自有永有”,欧洲思想史又重新提到这句话,我不想围绕“我是谁”这个话题详细讲述这段历史,这个话题是欧洲哲学的一个大问题,也是弗洛伊德以自己的方式重新研究的话题,他让被这个问题所困扰的人躺在沙发上,对他说:“告诉我你怎么爱?”

正如你们所看到的,我采取了大胆的捷径,引导大家去设想,存在、存在的特殊性和“我是谁”这类问题并不是中国人思想的基础,中国思想并不关心基础和根源问题。因此,在我们面前的中西方文化的交锋是很难进行的。那么在关注人、关注“我”、“我是谁”的西方社会和对这些概念置若罔闻的中国思想之间是否存在可能的相遇?两者间的对立是不可缓和的还是仍然存在可以沟通的地方?因为事实上,深受道、儒、释三重影响的中国思想并非建立在“存在”和“我”这些问题之上。由于汉学家们现在提到养生—一种意在维护生命、养护生命的气的统一,所以在围绕人、个体、自由、真理,尤其是性别身份的问题上,不存在中西方之间是否有交锋这样的问题。

我想起1974年和菲利普·索莱尔斯、罗兰·巴特一起的那次中国之旅。在西安地区,人们自豪地指给我们看中国母系社会时期的那些考古证据。他们挖掘了两个时期的墓穴,有不同的丧葬习俗。首先,两性的墓穴是分开的;后来祖母的尸骸位于墓穴的中央,家庭其他成员的尸骸围在她的四周,这是母系氏族的表现。

从那时——1974年以来,这些领域的研究取得了很大进展。近些年来的考古研究让人们开始关注一个生活在云南、四川边界的少数民族—纳西族。在现代化的中国仍然存在这样一个民族,他们的族人通常不结婚,因为没有婚姻,因此也没有父亲这个社会角色。这有别于与父权和男性先祖密不可分的严格的儒教传统。

在他们的社会中,不分单独的个体,男性活动成员由女性联系在一起。在这里甚至没有父亲或丈夫这样的字眼。群体是由出自同一位女性先祖的母系社会成员构成,分成姊妹群和兄弟群,他们生活在同一屋檐下,共同抚养后代。这里保留着男方去女方家走婚的习俗。在今天的一座纳西族的村庄里,仍为女性专门保留了一个房间来行云雨之事,不说是来过男人,只说是来过云雨。由此可见,男性处于可替代物的地位,而不是作为个体的男人,而是作为男人的肉身。不过,同一家庭血亲之间的乱伦是被禁止的。可见这是母系社会的一种运行模式。赋予性别实体,尤其是赋予男性的角色是潜在的,具有非常丰富多样的情爱技巧,这在道教文化中也有所体现。

我要着重强调,在这个维度里,身体不是单个意义上的,而是由各个部分一块块组装起来的,它们可以是性器官,也可以是五种感官,无一不跟道家思想中的气流、感应息息相关,或者可以说,跟天地宇宙息息相关;与此同时,它们也通向弗洛伊德和拉康学说中对快感与享乐离奇荒诞的体验,同西方思想体系中神秘主义的幻想不谋而合。举例来讲,我想起了前面提到的《黄庭内外景经》、《精气合一》和《悟真篇》,篇篇都是道家两性交媾的仪式,这些纲略真切地描绘了前面所说的交媾图谱,甚至展示了当中的细节:一对伴侣尽可能地抛却所有,心无旁骛,他们试图“复归于婴儿”,重新寻回对母亲的归属,等等。(内丹的)修炼被描绘成一种浸淫于“道”的状态;在这里,阴阳互生。所有这些都与老子的思想遥相呼应,在后者看来,每个人都是一个老去的孩童,可以重塑自己的身体,即便父亲缺席,他也能重新成为自己的母亲,体验到逆向走入永生的乐趣。

不难看出,我们身处的这个维度甚至不排斥乱伦,这里的身体是碎裂的、两性同体的,它不需要父亲,而是通过幻想一种子宫内的生命状态去追溯母系氏族制的记忆,从而抗拒死亡。这是父系社会和一神论的背面,在这一面,或许还可以这样说,女人裹小脚就是圣经中男性割礼的背面,是女人为阴性难以推拒的性享乐而领受的惩罚。所以,正是这种变幻无常,和这具碎裂的、两性同体的身体荒诞的享乐,打破了禁忌,而父系礼法的藩篱根本不曾存在。至于建立起严格的礼法和制度,为了抑制情欲,给道家孑立天地宇宙间的身体强行披上一件父系封建道德的外衣,那便是儒教的雄心壮志了。

回到前面说的享乐,拉康把这一概念引入了现代精神分析学,并给出了两个解读的变体。一方面,它会让我们无动于衷,会浇灭我们享乐的快感,因为我们(作为西方人)无法理解(这种东方哲学)。另一方面,拉康把它归入一种反常的、倒错的经验,这倒与变态自恋者的单纯的想入非非类似,可以纳入行为受限的人,甚至近于精神病人。说到这儿,这一研究领域的目的也在于不停地建构、解构、再建构男人-女人的组合,寻找这个二元对立可能的重新组合形式,这也是整个20世纪留待我们展望的问题。

正因为有了这样的视角,我才不止一次地提及道家思想中露骨的情欲传奇,因为在我看来,中国的现代小说和电影当中同样自觉不自觉地承载着这些理念两性关系中大胆露骨的性心理经验——,只不过以更加隐秘的方式。从而不难得出这样的结论:必然存在着一种性心理上的二元对立,存在一种罪恶感已经消解掉的双性同体,而且这种双性同体不仅仅是精神层面的,因为要知道,道家的“顺性修养”须得身体与灵魂相互交融。所有这一切,与其他任何文明,尤其是父权模式主宰的西方基督教文明相比,都显得更加突出、强烈,甚至愈发大胆、近乎淫秽。

刚刚说过,在21世纪的中国小说电影中,依然看得到这些露骨的情节。事实上,在广大民众看来,它们本身就存在于传统的中国夫妻身上,存在于世代的子嗣繁衍当中。然而,尽管女性性享乐就这样被赋予中心地位,尽管生育繁衍的欲望一度备受激发,但最终,经济限制还是迫使每个中国家庭只能生育一个孩子。于是,对于广大民众而言,性心理层面双性同体的夫妻关系早已终结,但却仍然维系着过去鲜明的表象:我是男人/我是女人。

而此刻在西方,建立在性享乐上的生命状态则把我们引向另一个方向强烈的性欲与生殖欲望,这也是社会契约与夫妻关系的核心。与圣经中的夫妻模式乃至整个犹太民族所奉行的同一模式对照,这种根植于生育繁衍的模式,对于人类的延续,似乎是现代所有模式中最为强大有效的。这样一来,我们便面临两种不同的繁衍模式犹太-基督教模式和中国模式,值得世界女性主义研究者以最大的耐心去探讨分析不只是它们的历史,还有它们当下的命运。再强调一遍,就像中国的电影小说所展现的那样,中国妇女心理和生理上的双性同体一早就从枷锁中大胆解放,那么对于女性主义者或者其他人而言,除了西方文化帕斯卡口中的摩西和中国文化之间的差异,从我简要的概述中还能得出什么结论呢?

回到精神分析,我认为要重提的第一件事就是,恰恰是精神分析最早开始将中国式的“顺性修养”,以及男-女、灵-肉、语言-音调、意义-表意、文-言等等身份变幻纳入自己的研究领域。我可以给诸位举几个关于母子关系的例子,对此现代精神分析已经进行了大量的研究,我的研究工作也在这个领域,因此我可以举两个例子。

例如,在经典弗洛伊德学说中,母亲不太被作为深入研究的对象,温尼科特(Winnicott)在这一领域取得了很大的进展。但是在海德格尔和弗洛伊德之后,尤其是拉康之后,人们认为,应该说我认为,母亲对于孩子而言,绝不是主体与客体分离这一意义上的客体,二者之间存在一种,或者说母亲拥有一种地位,现代精神分析把它叫做“物”,也就是一种还未同主体分离的实质,用我的话来讲,就是一种非常非常密切的联系,现阶段我把它称为依赖(reliance):它可以是暴躁甚至是憎恶,它既能体验孩子的怒气,也能体验母亲对客体强烈的控制欲;但同时它也可以是一种升华,作为升华的载波,主体由此开始为自己创造脱离母体的能力,从依赖中孕育出灵肉之间连续不断的升华。而诗人的创作正是来源于这种依赖,神秘主义者的思想也源于此,精神病患者和一些放肆的作家也会有这种强烈的依赖情结。

比如,塞林纳探寻卑劣、厌恶、自我与他者之间的强烈对抗,他创作的涉及母子关系的剧本就体现了这一点。换言之,在看待母子关系早熟的问题时,现代精神分析学会借用被认为是中国文化特有的“延续性”,这并不意味着我们要变成中国人,但这能使我们在某方面更好地了解中国,以及西方人的精神问题中仍被忽视的、有待解释的部分。

我再举一个例子来说明西方思想的先进之处是如何帮助中国人的。我要提到的这个中国人如今在法国是一个名人,我是我的汉语老师,当时我试图在汉语领域学到一些技能。他曾经向我夸耀中国思想里这种永久的延续性有多么强的适应能力。直到有一次,他很沮丧,他才跟我说了这样一句令我印象深刻的话:“当绝望袭来,我束手无策。我缺乏一个目标,一个他者去关注,一个可以信奉的人。”换言之,自我与他者区分的缺失,希腊思想、犹太思想和基督教思想赋予我们的相异性的概念化,在他那里是一种缺失的东西。他寻找着这个与他分隔的极点,找到了这个点,他就能够走出延续性,可以关注它,信奉它。他陷入了一个两难的困境,他跟我说:“要么,皈依天主教;要么,躺到(精神分析学家的)沙发上。”我觉得,这种两难的困境是今天每个成长在中国的人都有可能遇到的。

我还想说的是,宗教和西方精神理念对某个阶层的影响非常巨大,虽然这一阶层还没有在很大程度上西化,但是无论如何,它都会在中国发展壮大。宗教,一神论的宗教,在中国处于什么样的地位,精神分析法对中国的年轻人又有怎样的吸引和诱惑。

我要说的最后一点是,精神分析法为这种不自在的生存状态给出的答案是什么,这种不自在就像我们在西方所感受到的抑郁,性别差异,我们给出的答案是什么,我们怎么做才能行之有效。

最后一个例子是我在北京大学遇到的,当时我刚做完一场关于《天才女性》的讲座,我正要向中国女性解放事业致敬的时候,一位年轻的男士站起来对我说:“但是,谁又能把我们从妇女那里解放出来呢?作为男人,我们被埋没了,我们没有选择,我们只能在家庭暴力和同性恋之间进行选择来保护自己。”这让我很清楚地意识到,我刚才对双重性别的认可并不是说它一定能够带来某种独特的享乐,而且,虽然我说过这种复杂的内心变化在心醉神迷的快感中体现了一些道家思想,但是它不能取代现代人在走向相异性时所要经历的震颤,而精神分析学能够帮助我们更好地理解这一点。所以,如果说中国社会和西方主体性之间有差距,那么其实我们欧洲社会内部也有一些发展正在向这种中国式的延续性靠拢,尤其是在写作、升华、艺术和音乐等方面。

我想到了科莱特,比如她在《纯洁的和不纯洁的》一书中赞美了一种我们所谓的初发的女性同性恋,这种感情被描绘成一种天堂般的美好,两位兰格伦的女子(Dames de Llangollen)并没有被描绘成打破禁忌的同性恋者,而是完全无罪恶感的母女之间的乱伦,像孩子般天真地生活着。这与另一种被普鲁斯特自己称为被诅咒的种族的同性恋模式截然不同。在科莱特那里,呈现的是没有任何负罪感的天真无邪。科莱特在某些方面表现得像个道家的智者,从母亲那里得到滋养。玛格丽特·尤斯纳尔,我们的法国作家,可能中国读者也知道她,她说科莱特就跟古老的中国一样复杂。

此外,我们认为菲利普·索莱尔斯的很多小说融合了天真与乱伦,跟这种道家的享乐很相似,而让-米歇尔·卢的《孩子的身体,中国的身体:索莱尔斯与中国》一书就是一个很好的例证。我简单阐述的这几点都体现出中国文化也会借用西方思想和特殊的精神分析法来解决一些心理上的难题。而反过来,西方的哲学和文学又在朝这种延续性发展,并受到中国养生之道的影响,但它们是社会化的产物,不是建立在本体论之上的,而是与日常生活息息相关的。所有这些都说明,我们中西方之间的交流是可能的。

但这是需要前提条件的,我也想对出席本次会议的女权主义者们说,一方面,我们西方人要努力尽可能地学好你们的传统文化,不论是道、释还是儒家,也要了解你们的政治历史以及你们现在所进行的斗争,并以此为出发点,反思我们在对西方形而上学进行重新评估与解构的过程中提出的概念。另一方面,作为女权主义者,你们不能只是照搬西方女权主义的理论,而要更加关注你们自己的传统,接受它、驾驭它、评价它,当然,你们可以借助于西方的哲学和人文科学,但要以你们自己的方式去发展它们。只有这样,我们才能认识到我们之间的差异,也就是不同之处,我们才能搭建起沟通的桥梁。由此可见,女权主义也不仅仅是一种抗争运动,而是一个漫长的人类学的研究,残酷但很丰饶,因此会为我们开辟新的视野。  

谢谢各位!

 

译者为赵靓,曾经是高宣扬在同济大学的学生,并由其推荐师从克里斯蒂娃做博士论文。——译者注

           勉女权歌 
  吾辈爱自由,勉励自由一杯酒。 
  那女平权天赋就,岂甘居牛后? 
  愿奋然自拔,一洗从前羞耻垢。 
  愿安作同俦,恢复江山劳素手。 
  旧习最堪羞,女子竟同牛马偶。 
  曙光新放文明侯,独去占头筹。 
  愿奴隶根除,智识学问历练就。 
  责任上肩头,国民女杰期无负。

上海女子参政同志会于191211日由同盟会女会员唐群英等发起成立,会所设上海社会党本部内,又称上海女子参政会,为上海光复会第一个妇女团体,以期得国民完全参政权为宗旨,曾上书孙中山,要求将男女平等写入《临时约法》内。4月与女子后援会、尚武会、金陵女子同盟会、湖南女国民联合会合组成女子参政同盟会。——译者注

克里斯蒂娃的说法有误,大跃进是在19581960上半年,中国试图利用本土充裕劳动力和蓬勃的群众热情在工业农业上“跃进”的社会主义建设运动。——译者注