鬼魂概念的傳遞與轉化：亞伯拉罕與托洛克到德希達

Abstract

本論文旨在探討兩套論述之間的關係：其一，由法國精神分析師亞伯拉罕（Nicolas Abraham）與托洛克（Maria Torok）所提出，環繞著祕密、密室（crypt; crypte）與隔代作祟等主題而發展之鬼魂（phantom; fantôme）理論；其二，德希達（Jacques Derrida）關於幽靈（spectre）與幽靈性（spectrality; spectralité），或被統稱為「徘徊學」（hauntology; hantologie）的思想。 鬼魂與作祟二十世紀末以理論概念之姿進入文學研究領域，各式挪用與延伸一時蔚然成風，餘緒至今仍未散盡。一般承認此趨勢由鬼魂理論與徘徊學兩路思想或哲學取徑所共構，由此亞伯拉罕與托洛克及德希達的著作被視為觸發當代理論與批評「幽靈轉向」的動因，從而被賦予近乎經典之地位，在以鬼魂為批評術語或詮釋方法的研究中具相當影響力。 然而，在多數論者看來，就其關懷與開展而言，「鬼魂」與「幽靈」之間除同樣借用普遍存在於人類文化當中的鬼魅意象以為發想之外，並無其他顯著交集。更有甚者，德希達亦未曾直接評論或說明在亞伯拉罕與托洛克的構想與他所談論的鬼魂與作祟之間是否存在任何關聯。如此使得帶動學界對於鬼魂的興趣之「雙線」，其間連結僅能從表層的相似性（同樣在傳統鬼魂想像的基底上對之進行改造）或直覺式的猜想（亞伯拉罕與德希達私交甚篤）入手。 若亞伯拉罕與托洛克以及德希達關於鬼魂的論述真如諸多評論所言那樣判然有別，但兩者往往又共同做為「幽靈轉向」的動因而被一併提及，箇中緣由若非閃避談論，則至少繞過了大部分研究者的目光。透過詳細梳理亞伯拉罕與托洛克談論密室與鬼魂的一系列著作，以及德希達以《馬克思的幽靈》（Spectres of Marx; Spectres de Marx）為代表的關於幽靈性與徘徊學的書寫，本論文將分述鬼魂理論與徘徊學當中的重要概念如何各自被形構、提出與修整，藉此釐清當代鬼魂論述的「雙線」之關係，並展示此關係如何反映或體現幽靈性思想的核心關懷。本文試圖呈現亞伯拉罕與托洛克鬼魂理論的發展之全貌，並分析其構想如何鋪墊之後幽靈、徘徊學等德希達式語彙的登台。 據此，本論文亦將重探亞伯拉罕與托洛克在德希達著作當中的缺場——相關研究素來視之為意義非凡的問題，但實際著手討論者難稱多數——從論述層次的套疊與祕密傳遞之角度檢視此一斷裂，進而引出關於兩套論述的遺產，以及鬼魂所帶來對於繼承意義的啟發之討論。鬼魂理論與徘徊學，除論述本身所揭示或闡釋的內容之外，其間套疊與傳遞亦將是此「雙線」所贈與當代鬼魂研究最重要的遺產之一，為繼承、歷史與文本性等議題開啟新的思考面向。

This thesis investigates into the relation between the theory of “phantom” (fantôme) raised by French psychoanalysts Nicolas Abraham and Maria Torok, which revolves around secret, the “crypt” (crypte) and transgenerational haunting, and Jacques Derrida’s speculation on the spectre, the revenant and spectrality (spectralité), which is loosely referred to as “hauntology” (hantologie). Near the end of the late twentieth century, literary studies witnesses the rise of the ghost and haunting as critical concepts, proliferating in recent decades researches that study the ghost as a theme or that take its haunting as a theoretical inspiration. The trend is generally agreed to unfold in two intellectual or philosophical paths: the phantom theory and hauntology. Admitted as two main motivators of the contemporary “spectral turn” of theory and criticism, both the works of Derrida and of Abraham and Torok play canon-like roles in studies involving ghosts and haunting not merely as literary devices or imaginations but as critical concepts and tools for interpretation. However, for many scholars and critics, there seems hardly to be any obvious intersection between the fantôme and the spectre in terms of their main concerns and of the discussions they give rise to, except for the figure of ghost borrowed from a ubiquitous imagination. Further, Derrida has neither commented on nor explicated the relation between Abraham and Torok’s thought and his view on ghosts and haunting. Thus the link between the “two strands” of the contemporary academic interest in the ghost either has to appeal to a superficial similarity (both reshaping the traditional imagination of the ghost) or to an intuitive speculation (notably the personal friendship between Abraham and Derrida). If the theory of Abraham and Torok really differs that much from that of Derrida as certain critics have claimed, but are often mentioned together when it comes to the motivator of the “spectral turn,” there should be certain reasons which elude discourses or at least have escaped from current researchers’ observations and concerns. By examining closely a series of works by Abraham and Torok on the crypt and the phantom and Derrida’s discourse on spectrality and hauntology with Spectres of Marx as a representative, this thesis tries to demonstrate how their key concepts have been formed, brought up, elaborated and modified, in order to clarify the relation between the “two strands” of the contemporary spectral discourses and, moreover, how this relation reflects or embodies the crucial concern of the spectral discourses. It presents in a complete picture the development of Abraham and Torok’s theoretical conception of the phantom and analyse how they have set up a stage for the entrance of the Derridean spectre and hauntology. In doing so, it also reconsiders the absence of Abram and Torok in the discourse of Derrida—an intriguing question for previous studies, but not many have practically elaborated it—in the light of an invagination and a secretive transmission which takes place at the discursive sphere, especially as regards what is to be inherited from the phantom theory and hauntology and what light ghosts may shed on the meaning of inheritance. Aside from the contents of what they reveal or expound, this invagination and the transmission may be themselves a part of the most significant legacies the “two strands” have left to contemporary ghost studies, by which new thinking about inheritance, history and textuality can be opened.