‌‌‌‌　　英：foreclosure; 法：forclusion; 德：Verwerfung

‌‌‌‌　　从拉康1932年的博士论文开始，驱策其著作的核心探索之一，便是为精神病 (PSYCHOSIS)鉴别出一种特定的精神原因。在着手处理这一问题的过程中，有两个恒定的主题。

‌‌‌‌　　·对于父亲的排除 (the exclusion of the FATHER)早在1938年，拉康便将精神病的起源联系于父亲从家庭结构中遭到排除，其结果导致家庭结构被化约为母子关系 (Lacan, 1938:49)。随后在他的著作中，当拉康区分实在性、想象性与象征性父亲的时候，他也明确指出正是象征性父亲的缺位与精神病存在某种联系。

‌‌‌‌　　·弗洛伊德的“弃绝”概念 (the Freudian concept of Verwerfung)弗洛伊德以很多迥然不同的方式来使用“Verwerfung”这个术语 (该词在《标准版》中被译作“repudiation”)（见：Laplanche andPontalis, 1967:166), 但是拉康则特别聚焦于其中的一种方式，即与压抑 (Verdrangung)截然不同的一种特定防御机制这层意义，在此一机制中“自我将不相容的表象连同其情感一并拒绝，并且表现得就好像这个表象从未出现于自我似的”(Freud, 1894a:SEⅢ，58)。在1954年，拉康基于他自己对“狼人”个案 (见：Freud, 1918b: SE XVII, 79-80)的阅读，把“Verwerfung”确认为精神病的特定机制，其中的一个元素被拒绝在象征秩序的外部，就好像它从未存在过似的 (Ec, 386-7: S1,57-9)。此时，拉康提出各种不同的方式来把“Verwerfung”一词翻译成法语，例如将其译作“rejet'”(驳▣)、“refus”（拒绝）(S1,43)与“retranchement”（扣除）(Ec, 386)。直至1956年，拉康才提议用“forclusion”一词 (该术语在法国的法律体系中被使用；用英语说，即“foreclosure”)作为把“Verwerfung”翻译成法语的最佳方式 (S3,321)。拉康在其余下的著作中继续使用的也正是这一术语。

‌‌‌‌　　在1954年，当拉康在其对于精神病特定机制的探寻中转向弗洛伊德的“Verwerfung”概念时，我们尚且不清楚究竟是什么遭到了弃绝：遭到弃绝的可以是阉割，抑或是言语本身 (S1,53), 抑或是“生殖水平”(S1,58)。到1957年末，拉康才找到了对于这一问题的解答，他在此时提出了这样一种思想，即排除的对象正是父亲的名义 (NAME-OF-THE-FATHER)（一个基本能指）(E, 217). 如此一来，拉康便能够把先前支配他对精神病的因果性进行思考的两大主题 (父亲的缺位以及Verwerfung的概念)统统结合在一则公式之下。贯穿于拉康的其余著作，这则公式始终都处在拉康有关精神病的思想的核心。

‌‌‌‌　　对于一个特殊的主体而言，当父亲的名义遭到排除的时候，它便在象征秩序中留下了一个永远无法被填满的空洞：于是，这个主体便可以说是具有了一个精神病的结构，即便他并未表现出精神病的任何典型迹象。当遭到排除的父亲的名义或早或晚地重新出现于实在界中的时候，主体无法对其加以同化，而“与此一无法同化的能指相碰撞”(S3,321)的结果便是严格意义上的“进入精神病”(entry into psychosis), 其典型特征是各种幻觉（HALLUCINATIONS)与/或妄想 (DELUSIONS)的发作

‌‌‌‌　　排除应当与诸如压抑 (REPRESSION)、否定 (NEGATION)与投射 (PROJECTION)等其他的运作区分开来。

‌‌‌‌　　·压抑排除不同于压抑，是因为遭排除的元素并未被埋藏进无意识之中，而是被逐出了无意识之外。压抑是构成神经症的运作，而排除则是构成精神病的运作。

‌‌‌‌　　·否定排除不同于否定，是因为它并不关涉任何初始的存在判断 (见：肯定[BEJAHUNG])。否定涉及对于其存在先前既已登记的某种元素的否认，但对排除而言，则好像遭排除的元素根本就从未存在过似的。

‌‌‌‌　　·投射排除是一种明确的精神病机制，而投射对拉康而言则是一种纯粹的神经症机制。并且，就投射来说，作用的方向是从内部到外部，但就排除而言，遭排除的元素则是从外部而返回。在《有关一例偏执狂个案的自传性说明的精神分析评论》(1911c)一文中，弗洛伊德就已经注意到了这一点，他在此文中曾就施瑞伯 (Schreber)的那些幻觉写道：“在内部遭到抑制的知觉会被投射向外部，这样的说法是不正确的：相反，事实在于，正如我们现在所看到的那样，在内部遭到废除的事物会从外部返回”(SEXI, 71). 拉康不仅引用了弗洛伊德的这句话，而且还用他自己的措辞来对其加以改述：“凡是在象征秩序中遭到拒绝的事物…都会于实在界中重新出现。”(S3,13)

‌‌‌‌　　在I957年，拉康把“Verwerfung”这一术语短暂地联系于超我借由在俄狄浦斯情结的消解中认同于父亲而产生的机制（S4,415)。这显然不是精神病性的排除机制，而是一种正常的/神经症性的过程。

‌‌‌‌　　(forclusion) From his doctoral dissertation in 1932 on, one of the central quests whichanimates Lacan's work is that of identifying a specific psychical cause for PSYCHOSIS. In the course of addressing this problem, two themes are constant.

‌‌‌‌　　.The exclusion of the FATHER As early as 1938 Lacan relates the origin ofpsychosis to an exclusion of the father from the family structure, with the consequentreduction of the latter to mother-child relations (Lacan, 1938:49). Later on in his work, when Lacan distinguishes between the real, imaginary and symbolic father, he specifiesthat it is the absence of the symbolic father which is linked to psychosis.

‌‌‌‌　　The Freudian concept of Verwerfung Freud uses the term Verwerfung (translatedas 'repudiation'in the Standard Edition) in a number of disparate ways (see Laplancheand Pontalis, 1967:166), but Lacan focuses on one in particular: namely, the sense of aspecific defence mechanism which is distinct from repression (Verdrangung), in whichthe ego rejects the incompatible idea together with its affect and behaves as if the ideahad never occurred to the ego at all' (Freud, 1894a: SE III, 58). In 1954, basing himselfon a reading of the 'Wolf Man'case history (see Freud, 1918b: SE XVII, 79-80), Lacanidentifies Verwerfung as the specific mechanism of psychosis, in which an element isrejected outside the symbolic order just as if it had never existed (Ec, 386-7; S1,57-9). At this time Lacan proposes various ways of translating the term Verwerfing into French, rendering it as rejet, refus (S1,43) and retranchement (Ec, 386). It is not until 1956 that Lacan proposes the term forclusion (a term in use in the French legal system; in English,'foreclosure') as the best way of translating Verwerfing into French (S3,321). It is thisterm that Lacan continues to use for the rest of his work.

‌‌‌‌　　In 1954, when Lacan first tumns to the Freudian concept of Verwerfing in his searchfor a specific mechanism for psychosis, it is not clear exactly what is repudiated; it can becastration that is repudiated, or speech itself (S1,53), or 'the genital plane' (S1,58). Lacan finds a solution to the problem at the end of 1957, when he proposes the idea thatit is the NAME-OF-THE-FATHER (a fundamental signifier) that is the object offoreclosure (E, 217). In this way Lacan is able to combine in one formula both of thethemes that had previously dominated his thinking on the causality of psychosis (theabsence of the father and the concept of Verwerfing). This formula remains at the heartof Lacan's thinking on psychosis throughout the rest of his work.

‌‌‌‌　　When the Name-of-the-Father is foreclosed for a particular subject, it leaves a hole inthe symbolic order which can never be filled; the subject can then be said to have a psychotic structure, even if he shows none of the classical signs of psychosis. Sooner orlater, when the foreclosed Name-of-the-Father reappears in the real, the subject is unableto assimilate it, and the result of this 'collision with the inassimilable signifier' (S3,321) is the 'entry into psychosis'proper, characterised typically bytheonset ofHALLUCINATIONS and/or DELUSIONS.

‌‌‌‌　　Foreclosure is to be distinguished from other operations such as REPRESSION, NEGATION, and PROJECTION.

‌‌‌‌　　Repression Foreclosure differs from repression in that the foreclosed element is notburied in the unconscious but expelled from the unconscious. Repression is the operationwhich constitutes neurosis, whereas foreclosure is the operation which constitutespsychosis.

‌‌‌‌　　Negation Foreclosure differs from negation in that it involves no initial judgementof existence (see BEJAHUNG). Whereas negation involves the denial of some elementwhose existence has previously been registered, with foreclosure it is as if the foreclosedelement had never existed at all.

‌‌‌‌　　.Projection Foreclosure is a specifically psychotic mechanism, whereas for Lacanprojection is a purely neurotic mechanism. And whereas with projection, the direction ofthe process is from inside to outside, with foreclosure the foreclosed element returns fromoutside. Freud had noted this in Psycho-Analytic Notes on an Autobiographical Accountof a Case of Paranoia (1911c), where he wrote of Schreber's hallucinations: 'It wasincorrect to say that the perception which was suppressed internally is projectedoutwards; the truth is rather, as we now see, that what was abolished internally returnsfrom without' (SE XII, 71). Lacan not only quotes this sentence of Freud's, but alsorephrases it in his own terms;'whatever is refused in the symbolic order... Reappears inthe real' (S3,13).

‌‌‌‌　　In 1957 Lacan briefly links the term Verwerfung to the mechanism by which thesuperego is produced via identification with the father in the dissolution of the Oedipuscomplex (S4,415). This is clearly not the psychotic mechanism of foreclosure but anormal/neurotic process.