‌‌‌‌　　英：acting out; 德：Agieren

‌‌‌‌　　“行动搬演”是在《标准版》英译本中被用来翻译弗洛伊德所使用的德文单词 Agieren 的术语。拉康遵循精神分析作品中的传统，以英文来使用这一术语。

‌‌‌‌　　贯穿在弗洛伊德著作中的最重要的主题之一，即重复与回忆之间的对立。可以说，此两者是“把过去带入现在的两种相反的方式" (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:4)。如果过去的事件从记忆中遭到压抑，它们便会经由将其自身表达在行动中的方式而返回：因此，当主体回亿不起过去的时候，他便注定会通过将其行动搬演而对之进行重复。相反，精神分析治疗则旨在通过帮助病人进行回‌忆来打破此一重复的循环。

‌‌‌‌　　尽管某种重复的元素可见于几乎每一种人类的行动，然而“行动搬演”这一术语通常被保留给了那些展现出“与主体的惯常动机模式相对不和谐的一个冲动的面向”且因此“相当易于从其活动的整体倾向中隔离出来"的行动 (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:4)主体自己未能理解其行动背后的种种动机。

‌‌‌‌　　从一种拉康派的视角来看，行动搬演的这一基本定义固然正确，但不够完善：它忽略了大他者的维度。因而，当拉康主张行动搬演乃是起因于回忆过去的某种失败时，他便是在强调回忆的主体间维度。换句话说，回忆并不仅仅涉及把某件事情召回意识，而且还涉及经由语言将这件事情传达给一个大他者。因此，当大他者拒绝倾听而使回忆变得不可能的时候，便会导致行动搬演。当大他者变得“耳聋”的时候，主体便无法用言语将一则信息传递给他，而被迫在行动中来表达这一信息。行动搬演因而是主体发送给大他者的一则加密的信息，尽管主体自己既未意识到这一信息的内容，甚至也未意识到自己的行动在表达某种信息。正是大他者受到委托去破译这则信息；不过，这么做对他而言又是不可能的。

‌‌‌‌　　为了闸明自己有关行动搬演的评论，拉康提到了弗洛伊德曾经治疗过的同性恋少女的个案 (Freud, 1920 a)。弗洛伊德报告说，这位年轻女子坚持要在她心爱女士的陪伴下出现在维也纳最繁华的那些街道上，尤其是出现在靠近她父亲的办公场所的那些街道上。拉康指出，这是一种行动搬演，因为它是这位年轻女子发送给她的那位无法倾听自己的父亲的信息(Lacan, 1962-3:1963年1月23日的研讨班)。

‌‌‌‌　　在同性恋少女的例子中，行动搬演是先于她同弗洛伊德开始精神分析治疗的过程而发生的。这样的行动搬演可以被看作“无分析性的转移”(transference without analysis)或“野蛮转移”(wild transference)(Lacan, 1962-3:1963年1 月23 日的研讨班)。然而，大多数分析家都认为，“当它发生在分析过程中的时候一无论是否发生在实际的会谈期间一行动搬演都应当在其与转移的关系之中来理解”(Laplanche and Pontalis,. I967:4)。弗洛伊德曾经宣称，精神分析治疗的一项基本原则，即在于“尽可能多地将其逼进记忆的渠道，并且尽可能少地使之作为重复而出现”(Freud, 1920g:SEXVⅢ，19)。因此，当一位分析者在诊疗室外行动搬演了在最近某次分析会谈期间唤起的一个无意识愿望的时候，这就必须被看作一种针对治疗的阻抗。然而，因为每一个针对分析的阻抗皆是分析家自身的阻抗 (E, 235), 所以当行动搬演在治疗期间出现的时候，往往都是由于分析家所造成的某种失误。分析家的失误通常都在于提供了一则不恰当的解释，从而暴露出了对分析者言语的某种暂时性“耳聋”。作为对此的说明，拉康提到了自我心理学家恩斯特·克里斯曾经描述过的一则案例 (Ks,1951)。拉康指出，克里斯所给出的那则干预虽然在某种层面上是准确的，但却并未切中问题的核心，因而激起了一个行动搬演：在那次会谈过后，这位分析者到附近的一家餐馆吃了一些“新鲜脑子”(fresh brains)。拉康宣称，这一行动便是发送给分析家的一则加密的信息，它表明此种解释未能触及病人症状的最本质方面(Lacan, 1962-3:1963 年 1 月 23 日的研讨班：亦见：E, 238-9 与 S1,59-61)。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康将其 1962一1963 年度的研讨班中的儿讲专门用来在行动搬演与行动宣泄 (PASSAGE TO THE ACT)之间建立一个区分。

‌‌‌‌　　'Acting out'is the term which is used in the Standard Edition to translate the Germanterm Agieren used by Freud. Lacan, following a tradition in psychoanalytic writing, usesthis term in English.

‌‌‌‌　　One of the most important themes running throughout Freud's work is the oppositionbetween repeating and remembering. These are, so to speak,'contrasting ways ofbringing the past into the present' (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:4). If past events arerepressed from memory, they return by expressing themselves in actions; when thesubject does not remember the past, therefore, he is condemned to repeat it by acting it out. Conversely, psychoanalytic treatment aims to break the cycle of repetition by helpingthe patient to remember.

‌‌‌‌　　Although an element of repetition can be found in almost every human action, theterm 'acting out'is usually reserved for those actions which display 'an impulsive aspectrelatively out of harmony with the subject's usual motivational patterns'and which aretherefore 'fairly easy to isolate from the overall trends of his activity' (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:4). The subject himself fails to understand his motives for the action.

‌‌‌‌　　From a Lacanian perspective, this basic definition of acting out is true but incomplete; it ignores the dimension of the Other. Thus while Lacan maintains that acting out resultsfrom a failure to recollect the past, he emphasises the intersubjective dimension ofrecollection. In other words, recollection does not merely involve recalling something toconsciousness, but also communicating this to an Other by means of speech. Henceacting out results when recollection is made impossible by the refusal of the Other tolisten. When the Other has become'deaf, the subject cannot convey a message to him inwords, and is forced to express the message in actions. The acting out is thus a cipheredmessage which the subject addresses to an Other, although the subject himself is neitherconscious of the content of this message nor even aware that his actions express amessage. It is the Other who is entrusted with deciphering the message; yet it isimpossible for him to do so.

‌‌‌‌　　In order to illustrate his remarks on acting out, Lacan refers to the case of the younghomosexual woman treated by Freud (Freud, 1920 a). Freud reports that the youngwoman made a point of appearing in the company of the woman she loved in the busieststreets of Vienna, especially in the streets near her father's place of business. Lacanargues that this was an acting out because it was a message which the young woman wasaddressing to her father who would not listen to her (Lacan, 1962-3: seminar of 23 January 1963).

‌‌‌‌　　In the example of the young homosexual woman, the acting out occurred before shebegan acourse of psychoanalytic treatment with Freud. Such acting out canbeconsidered as 'transference without analysis', or 'wild transference' (Lacan, 1962-3: seminar of 23 January 1963). However, most analysts argue that 'when it occurs in thecourse of analysiswhether during the actual session or not-acting out should beunderstood in its relationship to the transference' (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:4). Freudstated that it is a basic principle of psychoanalytic treatment to 'force as much as possibleinto the channel of memory and to allow as little as possible to emerge as repetition' (Freud, 1920 g: SE XVIII, 19). Therefore when an analysand acts out an unconsciouswish aroused during a recent analytic session outside the consulting room this must beseen as a resistance to the treatment. However, since every resistance to analysis is aresistance of the analyst himself (E, 235), when acting out occurs during the treatment itis often due to a mistake made by the analyst. The analyst's mistake is usually to offer aninappropriate interpretation which reveals a momentary 'deafness'to the speech of theanalysand. As an illustration of this, Lacan refers to a case history described by the ego-psychologist Ernst Kris (Kris, 1951). Lacan argues that the interpretation given by Kriswas accurate at one level, but did not go to the heart of the matter, and thus provoked anacting out: after the session, the analysand went to eat some fresh brains'at a nearbyrestaurant. This action, states Lacan, was a ciphered message addressed to the analyst, indicating that the interpretation had failed to touch on the most essential aspect of the patient's symptom (Lacan, 1962-3: seminar of 23 January 1963; see also E, 238-9 and S 1,59-61).

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan dedicates several classes of his 1962-3 seminar to establishing a distinctionbetween acting out and the PASSAGE TO THE ACT.