英：fetishism; 法：fetichisme; 德：Fetischismus
“物神”(fetish)这个术语首先在18世纪开始被广泛使用于研究“原始宗教”的语境，它在其中表示一种无生命的崇拜对象（拉康认为这一词源是非常重要的：S8,169)。在19世纪，马克思曾借用该术语描述资本主义社会中的各种社会关系如何会以虚假的形式来呈现事物之间的种种关系（即“商品拜物教”[commodity fetish-ism])。在19世纪的最后十年里，克拉夫特-埃宾①首度将此一术语应用于性行为。他把恋物癖定义为一种性倒错 (PERVERSION), 性兴奋在其中完全取决于一个特定对象（物神）的在场。弗洛伊德与论及性欲的大多数其他作者此后所采用的正是这一定义。物神通常都是一个无生命的对象，诸如一只鞋子或者一件内衣。
弗洛伊德认为，恋物癖（被看作一种几乎是男性专有的性倒错）起源于孩子对于女性阉割的恐惧。面对着母亲阴茎的缺失，恋物癖患者会拒认这一缺失，并且会找到一个对象（物神）来充当对于母亲欠缺的阴茎的某种象征性替代 (Freud, 1927e).
当拉康在1956年首度触及恋物癖的主题的时候，他便指出恋物癖是一个特别重要的研究领域，并且叹息他的同代人对此的忽视。他强调说物神与母亲阳具 (PHALLUS)之间的等价只能通过参照于语言的转化来理解，而非是参照于“视觉领域中模糊类比”，诸如皮草与阴毛之间的比较 (Lacan, 1956b:267)。他援引了弗洛伊德对于“鼻子上的光泽”(Glanz auf der Nase)这一措辞的分析来作为对自己论点的支撑 (见：Freud, I927e).
在接下来的几年里，随着拉康发展出了他在阴茎与阳具之间的区分，他便强调说物神是对于后者而非前者的一种替代。此外，拉康还拓展了拒认 (DISAVOWAL)的机制，并且使之成为性倒错本身而不只是恋物癖倒错的构成性运作。然而，他保留了弗洛伊德的观点，认为恋物癖是一种男性专有的性倒错 (Ec, 734),或者至少在女人中间是极其罕见的 (S4,154).
在1956一1958年度的研讨班中，拉康详细阐述了恋物癖对象与恐怖症对象之间的一个重要的区分：物神是对于母亲欠缺之阳具的一种象征性替代，而恐怖症对象则是对于象征性阉割的一种想象性替代 (见：恐怖症[PHOBIA])。如同所有性倒错一样，恋物癖的根源也在于母亲一孩子一阳具的前俄狄浦斯三角（S4,845,194)。然而，恋物癖的独特之处则在于它既涉及了对于母亲的认同，同时又涉及了对于想象的阳具的认同；实际上，在恋物癖中，主体便摇摆在此两种认同之间 (S4,86,160).
拉康在1958年声称阴茎对那些异性恋的女人而言“呈现出了某种物神的价值”，他的这一命题引起了很多有趣的问题（E, 290)。首先，它翻转了弗洛伊德有关恋物癖的见解；相比于把物神当作对于实在的阴茎的一种象征性替代，实在的阴茎本身就可以经由替代女人缺位的象征性阳具而变成一种物神。其次，它动摇了（弗洛伊德与拉康都曾做出的）恋物癖在女人中间是极其罕见的这一主张；如果阴茎可以被视作一种物神，那么恋物癖就明显在女人中间比在男人中间更为普遍。
(fetichisme) The term 'fetish'first came into widespread use in the eighteenth century incontext of the study of 'primitive religions', in which it denoted an inanimate object of worship (an etymology which Lacan believes is important; S8,169). In the nineteenthcentury, Marx borrowed the term to describe the way that, in capitalist societies, socialrelations assume the illusory form of relations between things ('commodity fetishism'). Itwas Krafft-Ebing who, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, first applied the termto sexual behaviour. He defined fetishism as a sexual PERVERSION in which sexualexcitement is absolutely dependent on the presence of a specific object (the fetish). It isthis definition that Freud and most other writers on sexuality have adopted since. Thefetish is usually an inanimate object such as a shoe or piece of underwear.
Freud argued that fetishism (seen as an almost exclusively male perversion) originatesin the child's horror of female castration. Confronted with the mother's lack of a penis, the fetishist disavows this lack and finds an object (the fetish) as a symbolic substitute forthe mother's missing penis (Freud, 1927e).
In Lacan's first approach to the subject of fetishism, in 1956, he argues that fetishismis a particularly important area of study and bemoans its neglect by his contemporaries. He stresses that the equivalence between the fetish and the maternal PHALLUS can onlybe understood by reference to linguistic transformations, and not by reference to 'vagueanalogies in the visual field'such as comparisons between fur and pubic hair (Lacan, 1956b:267). He cites Freud's analysis of the phrase Glanz aufder Nase'as support forhis argument (see Freud, 1927e).
In the following years, as Lacan develops his distinction between the penis andphallus, he emphasises that the fetish is a substitute for the latter, not the former. Lacanalso extends the mechanism of DISAVOWAL, making it the operation constitutive ofperversion itself, and not just of the fetishistic perversion. However, he retains Freud'sview that fetishism is an exclusively male perversion (Ec, 734), or at least extremely rareamong women (S4,154).
In the seminar of 1956-7, Lacan elaborates an important distinction between the fetishobject and the phobic object; whereas the fetish is a symbolic substitute for the mother'smissing phallus, the phobic object is an imaginary substitute for symbolic castration (seePHOBIA). Like all perversions, fetishism is rooted in the preoedipal triangle of mother-child-phallus (S4,84-5,194). However, it is unique in that it involves both identificationwith mother and with the imaginary phallus; indeed, in fetishism, the subject oscillatesbetween these two identifications (S4,86,160).
Lacan's statement,in 1958,that the penis 'takes on the value of a fetish'forheterosexual women raises a number of interesting questions(E,290).Firstly,it reverses Freud's views on fetishism;rather than the fetish being a symbolic substitute for the realpenis,the real penis may itself become a fetish by substituting the woman's absentsymbolic phallus.Secondly,it undermines the claims (made by both Freud and Lacan)that fetishism is extremely rare among women;if the penis can be considered a fetish,then fetishism is clearly far more prevalent among women than among men.