‌‌‌‌　　英：Oedipus complex; 法：complexe d' (Edipe; 德：Odipuskomplex

‌‌‌‌　　俄狄浦斯情结曾经被弗洛伊德定义为主体在其与父母的关系中所体验到的一系列爱恋与敌对欲望的无意识布景：主体欲望着父母中的一方，并因而进入同另一方的竞争。在俄狄浦斯情结的“正向”形式中，被欲望的父母是与主体性别相反的一方，而同性的父母则是竞争者。俄狄浦斯情结在生命的第三年出现，继而在第五年衰退，孩子在此时会放弃对于其父母的性欲望并转而认同于竞争者。弗洛伊德认为，所有的精神病理性结构皆可以追溯至俄狄浦斯情结中的某种故障，该情结因而便被冠名为“神经症的核心情结”。虽然此一术语直至1910年才出现于弗洛伊德的作品，但是其发端的踪迹却可见于弗洛伊德更早前的著作，而到了1910年时则已然呈现出一些迹象，从而表明了该术语其后在所有精神分析理论中要获得的那种核心重要性。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康首度论及俄狄浦斯情结是在其1938年有关家庭的文章里，他在该文中指出，它是三个“家庭情结”中的最后也是最重要的一个情结 (见：情结[COMPLEX])。拉康在此时有关俄狄浦斯情结的见解与弗洛伊德的看法并无二致，而他的唯一独创性在于他从马林诺夫斯基等人的人类学研究中获得了启发，而强调该情结的历史与文化的相关性 (Lacan, 1938:66).

‌‌‌‌　　到了1950年代，拉康才开始发展出他自己与众不同的俄狄浦斯情结概念。虽然他始终遵循弗洛伊德把俄狄浦斯情结看作无意识中的核心情结，但他现在开始在几个重要的观点上有别于弗洛伊德。其中最重要的一点就是，在拉康的见解中，不管主体是男性还是女性，主体都始终欲望着母亲，而父亲也始终是竞争者。因此，在拉康的说法中，男性主体便是以一种在根本上不对称于女性主体的方式来经历俄狄浦斯情结的（见：性别差异[SEXUAL DIFFERENCE]).

‌‌‌‌　　对拉康而言，俄狄浦斯情结是与所有二元关系形成反差的三角结构的范例 (但是，请参见下文最后一段)。俄狄浦斯情结中的关键作用因而便是父亲 (FATHER)的功能，正是作为第三项的父亲，把母亲与孩子之间的二元关系转化成了一个三元结构。俄狄浦斯情结因而便完全是从想象秩序过渡到象征秩序的通路，“就其本身而言即象征关系的胜利”(S3,199)。过渡到象征界的这一通路需经由一种复杂的性别辩证法，这一事实便意味着主体无法不面对性别差异的问题而登陆象征秩序。

‌‌‌‌　　在《研讨班V》中，拉康通过鉴别出俄狄浦斯情结的三个“时间”来分析这一从想象界到象征界的通路，这三个时间的顺序是逻辑上的优先而非时序上的优先 (Lacan, 1957-8:1958年1月22日的研讨班)。

‌‌‌‌　　俄狄浦斯情结的第一“时间”是以母亲、孩子与阳具构成的想象三角形为特征的。在1956一1957年的前一期研讨班上，拉康将此称作前俄狄浦斯三角 (preoedipal triangle)(见：前俄狄浦斯期[PREOEDIPAL PHASE])。然而，无论这个三角被看作前俄狄浦斯性的还是俄狄浦斯情结自身中的一个时刻，其主旨都是一样，即在父亲的介入之前，母亲与孩子之间从来都没有一种纯粹的二元关系，而是始终存在着一个第三项一阳具，即母亲在孩子自身之外所欲望的一个想象的对象 (S4,240-1)。拉康暗示到，想象性阳具作为第三项在想象三角形中的在场，即表明象征性父亲此时已经在起作用了 (Lacan, 1957-8:1958年1月22日的研讨班)。

‌‌‌‌　　于是，在俄狄浦斯情结的第一“时间”上，孩子便会认识到自己与母亲两者皆被某种缺失所标记。母亲由缺失所标记，是因为她被看作不完整的：否则的话，她便不会有欲望。主体也同样由缺失所标记，是因为他并未完全满足母亲的欲望。在两种情况下，这一缺失的元素都是想象的阳具 (PHALLUS)。母亲欲望着她所缺失的阳具，而 (依照黑格尔的欲望[DESIRE]理论)主体则试图变成她的欲望对象，他试图成为母亲的阳具并填补她的缺失。在此时刻上，母亲是全能的，而她的欲望即法则。虽然此种全能可能从一开始就被看作威胁性的，但是当孩子自身的性冲动开始表现出来（例如在幼儿手淫中）的时候，这样的威胁感便会受到强化。这一冲动的实在的突发状况，便会在先前诱惑性的想象三角形中引入一个焦虑的不和谐音符 (S4,225-6)。孩子现在则面对着这样一种认识，即他无法仅仅以阳具的想象性假相来愚弄母亲的欲望一他还必须交出实在界中的某种东西。不过，孩子的实在性器官（无论男孩还是女孩）是令人无望地不足。面对着全能的母亲的欲望，这种不足与无能的感觉无法得到安抚，便会引起焦虑。唯有父亲在俄狄浦斯情结的后续时间上的介入，才能为此种焦虑提供一种实在的解决。

‌‌‌‌　　俄狄浦斯情结的第二“时间”是以想象性父亲的介入为特征的。父亲通过拒绝母亲享有阳具性对象并禁止主体享有母亲而把法则强加在母亲的欲望之上。拉康通常将此种介入称作对母亲的“阉割”，即便他也声称，严格地讲，这一运作并非阉割的运作，而是剥夺的运作。此种介入是由母亲的话语来作为中介的：换句话说，重要的不是让实在性父亲介入进来并强加法则，而是让这一法则在母亲的言行中被母亲自己遵守与尊重。主体现在便把父亲看作争夺母亲欲望的一个竞争者。

‌‌‌‌　　俄狄浦斯情结的第三“时间”是以实在性父亲的介入为标志的。通过展示他拥有阳具，既不交换也不给予阳具 (S3,319), 实在的父亲便在让孩子不可能继续坚持试图成为母亲的阳具的意义上阉割了孩子：与实在的父亲竞争是没有用的，因为父亲总是会赢 (S4,208-9,227)。由于认识到父亲“拥有”(has)阳具，主体便从不得不“成为”(be)阳具的这项不可能且激起焦虑的任务中被解救了出来。这便使主体得以认同父亲。在此种继发性（象征性）认同中，主体便超越了原发性（想象性）认同中所固有的侵凌性。拉康遵循弗洛伊德的观点指出，超我就是由对于父亲的这一俄狄浦斯式认同而构成的 (S4,415).

‌‌‌‌　　因为象征界是法则 (LAW)的领域，也因为俄狄浦斯情结是象征秩序的胜利，所以该情结便具有一种规范性与正常化的功能：“俄狄浦斯情结对于让人类能够进入实在界的人性化结构而言是本质性的。”(S3,198)此种规范性的功能要同时参照各种临床结构与性欲的问题来理解。

‌‌‌‌　　·俄狄浦斯情结与临床结构根据弗洛伊德把俄狄浦斯情结视作所有精神病理学之根源的观点，拉康将所有临床结构都联系于此一情结中的不同困境。因为俄狄浦斯情结是不可能完全解除的，所以也就不存在一种完全非病理性的位置。最接近这一位置的便是神经症的结构，神经症患者经历了俄狄浦斯情结的全部三个时间，倘若没有俄狄浦斯情结，也就根本没有神经症这样的事物。另一方面，精神病、性倒错与恐怖症则皆起因于“某种事物在俄狄浦斯情结中是基本不完全”的时候 (S2,201)。在精神病中，甚至在俄狄浦斯情结的第一时间之前，便已然存在着一种根本性的锁闭。在性倒错中，该情结被维持到了第三时间上，但主体不是认同父亲，而是相反认同母亲和/或想象的阳具，从而又折返回了想象性的前俄狄浦斯三角。恐怖症则因为实在的父亲未能介入而出现在主体无法从俄狄浦斯情结的第二时间过渡至第三时间的时候。于是，恐怖症便充当着替代实在性父亲的介入的功能，从而使主体得以过渡到俄狄浦斯情结的第三时间（尽管往往是以一种非典型性的方式）。

‌‌‌‌　　·俄狄浦斯情结与性欲正是主体使自己通过俄狄浦斯情结的特殊方式，同时决定着他会采取怎样的性别位置以及他会选择怎样的性欲对象 (有关对象选择的问题，见：S4,201).

‌‌‌‌　　在其1969一1970年度的研讨班上，拉康重新考察了俄狄浦斯情结，并将俄狄浦斯的神话分析为弗洛伊德的一个梦境（S17, ch. 8)。在此期研讨班上 (尽管不是第一次，见：S7),拉康将俄狄浦斯的神话对照于弗洛伊德的其他神话 (即《图腾与禁忌》中的部落原父神话，以及谋杀摩西的神话：见：Freud, 1912-13与1939a), 并且指出《图腾与禁忌》的神话在结构上是与俄狄浦斯的神话相对立的。在俄狄浦斯的神话中，谋杀父亲使俄狄浦斯得以享乐与自己母亲的性关系，而在《图腾与禁忌》的神话里，谋杀父亲非但没有允许孩子们享有父亲的女人，反而只是强化了乱伦禁忌的法则（见：S7,176)。拉康认为，就此而言，《图腾与禁忌》的神话相比于俄狄浦斯的神话是更加精准的，前者表明对于母亲的享乐是不可能的，而后者则把对于母亲的享乐呈现为遭禁止的，而非不可能的。在俄狄浦斯情结中，对于“享乐”的禁止因而便服务于隐藏此种“享乐”的不可能性：主体于是便执着于神经症的幻想，即若非因为法则的禁止，“享乐”便会是可能的。

‌‌‌‌　　在其对众多四元模型的提及中，拉康对有关俄狄浦斯情结的所有三角模型皆做出了某种含蓄的批判。因而，尽管俄狄浦斯情结可以被视作从二元关系到三角结构的过渡，然而拉康指出该情结的更精确表现是从前俄狄浦斯三角（母亲一孩子一阳具）到俄狄浦斯四元组(QUATERNARY)（母亲一孩子一父亲一阳具）的过渡。另一种可能是把俄狄浦斯情结看作从前俄狄浦斯三角（母亲一孩子一阳具）到俄狄浦斯三角（母亲一孩子一父亲）的过渡。

‌‌‌‌　　(complexe d'Oedipe) The Oedipus complex was defined by Freud as an unconscious setof loving and hostile desires which the subject experiences in relation to its parents; thesubject desires one parent, and thus enters into rivalry with the other parent. In thepositive'form of the Oedipus complex, the desired parent is the parent of the oppositesex to the subject, and the parent of the same sex is the rival. The Oedipus complexemerges in the third year of life and then declines in the fifth year, when the childrenounces sexual desire for its parents and identifies with the rival. Freud argued that allpsychopathological structures could be traced to a malfunction in the Oedipus complex, which was thus dubbed 'the nuclear complex of the neuroses'. Although the term doesnot appear in Freud's writings until 1910, traces of its origins can be found much earlierin his work, and by 1910 it was already showing signs of the central importance that itwas to acquire in all psychoanalytic theory thereafter.

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan first addresses the Oedipus complex in his 1938 article on the family, where heargues that it is the last and most important of the three 'family complexes' (seeCOMPLEX). At this point his account of the Oedipus complex does not differ from Freud's, his only originality being to emphasise its historical and cultural relativity, taking his cue from the anthropological studies by Malinowski and others (Lacan, 1938:66).

‌‌‌‌　　It is in the 1950s that Lacan begins to develop his own distinctive conception of the Oedipus complex. Though he always follows Freud in regarding the Oedipus complex asthe central complex in the unconscious, he now begins to differ from Freud on a numberof important points. The most important of these is that in Lacan's view, the subjectalways desires the mother, and the father is always the rival, irrespective of whether thesubject is male or female. Consequently, in Lacan's account the male subject experiences the Oedipus complex in a radically asymmetrical way to the female subject (seeSEXUAL DIFFERENCE).

‌‌‌‌　　The Oedipus complex is, for Lacan, the paradigmatic triangular structure, whichcontrasts with all dual relations (though see the final paragraph below). The key functionin the Oedipus complex is thus that of the FATHER, the third term which transforms thedual relation between mother and child into a triadic structure. The Oedipus complex isthus nothing less than the passage from the imaginary order to the symbolic order, theconquest of the symbolic relation as such' (S3,199). The fact that the passage to thesymbolic passes via a complex sexual dialectic means that the subject cannot have accessto the symbolic order without confronting the problem of sexual difference.

‌‌‌‌　　In The Seminar, Book V, Lacan analyses this passage from the imaginary to thesymbolic by identifying three 'times'of the Oedipus complex, the sequence being one oflogical rather than chronological priority (Lacan, 1957-8: seminar of 22 January 1958).

‌‌‌‌　　The first time of the Oedipus complex is characterised by the imaginary triangle ofmother, child and phallus. In the previous seminar of 1956-7, Lacan calls this thepreoedipal triangle (see PREOEDIPAL PHASE). However, whether this triangle isregarded as preoedipal or as a moment in the Oedipus complex itself, the main point isthe same: namely, that prior to the invention of the father there is never a purely dualrelation between the mother and the child but always a third term, the phallus, animaginary object which the mother desires beyond the child himself (S4,240-1). Lacanhints that the presence of the imaginary phallus as a third term in the imaginary triangleindicates that the symbolic father is already functioning at this time (Lacan, 1957-8: seminar of 22 January 1958).

‌‌‌‌　　In the first time of the Oedipus complex, then, the child realises that both he and themother are marked by a lack. The mother is marked by lack, since she is seen to beincomplete; otherwise, she would not desire. The subject is also marked by a lack, sincehe does not completely satisfy the mother's desire. The lacking element in both cases isthe imaginary PHALLUS. The mother desires the phallus she lacks, and (in conformitywith Hegel's theory of DESIRE) the subject seeks to become the object of her desire; heseeks to be the phallus for the mother and fill out her lack. At this point, the mother isomnipotent and her desire is the law. Although this omnipotence may be seen asthreatening from the very beginning, the sense of threat is intensified when the child'sown sexual drives begin to manifest themselves (for example in infantile masturbation). This emergence of the real of the drive introduces a discordant note of anxiety into thepreviously seductive imaginary triangle (S4,225-6). The child is now confronted withthe realisation that he cannot simply fool the mother's desire with the imaginarysemblance of a phallus-he must present something in the real. Yet the child's real organ (whether boy or girl) is hopelessly inadequate. This sense of inadequacy and impotencein the face of an omnipotent maternal desire that cannot be placated gives rise to anxiety. Only the intervention of the father in the subsequent times of the Oedipus complex canprovide a real solution to this anxiety.

‌‌‌‌　　The second 'time'of the Oedipus complex is characterised by the intervention of theimaginary father. The father imposes the law on the mother's desire by denying heraccess to the phallic object and forbidding the subject access to the mother. Lacan oftenrefers to this intervention as the 'castration'of the mother, even though he states that, properlyspeaking, the operation is not one of castration but of privation. This intervention is mediated by the discourse of the mother; in other words, what is importantis not that the real father step in and impose the law, but that this law be respected by themother herself in both her words and her actions. The subject now sees the father as arival for the mother's desire.

‌‌‌‌　　The third 'time'of the Oedipus complex is marked by the intervention of the realfather. By showing that he has the phallus, and neither exchanges it nor gives it (S3,319), the real father castrates the child, in the sense of making it impossible for the child topersist in trying to be the phallus for the mother; it is no use competing with the realfather, because he always wins (S4,208-9,227). The subject is freed from the impossibleand anxiety-provoking task of having to be the phallus by realising that the father has it. This allows the subject to identify with the father. In this secondary (symbolic) identification the subject transcends the aggressivity inherent in primary (imaginary) identification. Lacan follows Freud in arguing that the superego is formed out of this Oedipal identification with the father (S4,415).

‌‌‌‌　　Since the symbolic is the realm of the LAW, and since the Oedipus complex is theconquest of the symbolic order, it has a normative and normalising function: the Oedipuscomplex is essential for the human being to be able to accede to a humanized structure ofthe real' (S3,198). This normative function is to be understood in reference to bothclinical structures and the question of sexuality.

‌‌‌‌　　.The Oedipus complex and clinical structures In accordance with Freud's view ofthe Oedipus complex as the root of all psychopathology, Lacan relates all the clinicalstructures to difficulties in this complex. Since it is impossible to resolve the complexcompletely, a completely non-pathological position does not exist. The closest thing is aneurotic structure; the neurotic has come through all three times of the Oedipus complex, and there is no such thing as a neurosis without Oedipus. On the other hand, psychosis, perversion and phobia result when 'something is essentially incomplete in the Oedipuscomplex' (S2,201). In psychosis, there is a fundamental blockage even before the firsttime of the Oedipus complex. In perversion, the complex is carried through to the thirdtime, but instead of identifying with the father, the subject identifies with the motherand/or the imaginary phallus, thus harking back to the imaginary preoedipal triangle. Aphobia arises when the subject cannot make the transition from the second time of the Oedipus complex to the third time because the real father does not intervene; the phobiathen functions as a substitute for the intervention of the real father, thus permitting thesubject to make the passage to the third time of the Oedipus complex (though often in anatypical way).

‌‌‌‌　　The Oedipus complex and sexuality It is the particular way the subject navigateshis passage through the Oedipus complex that determines both his assumption of a sexualposition and his choice of a sexual object (on the question of object choice, see S4,201). In his seminar of 1969-70, Lacan re-examines the Oedipus complex, and analyses themyth of Oedipus as one of Freud's dreams (S17, ch. 8). In this seminar (though not forthe first time, see S7) Lacan compares the myth of Oedipus with the other Freudianmyths (the myth of the father of the horde in Totem and Taboo, and the myth of themurder of Moses; see Freud, 1912-13 and 1939a) and argues that the myth of Totem and Taboo is structurally opposite to the myth of Oedipus. In the myth of Oedipus, themurder of the father allows Oedipus to enjoy sexual relations with his mother, whereas inthe myth of Totem and Taboo the murder of the father, far from allowing access to the father's women, only reinforces the Law which forbids incest (see S7,176). Lacan arguesthat in this respect the myth of Totem and Taboo is more accurate than the myth of Oedipus; the former shows that enjoyment of the mother is impossible, whereas the latterpresents enjoyment of the mother as forbidden but not impossible. In the Oedipuscomplex a prohibition of jouissance thus serves to hide the impossibility of thisjouissance; the subject can thus persist in the neurotic illusion that, were it not for the Law which forbids it, jouissance would be possible.

‌‌‌‌　　In his reference to fourfold models, Lacan makes an implicit criticism of all triangularmodels of the Oedipus complex. Thus, though the Oedipus complex can be seen as thetransition from a dual relationship to a triangular structure, Lacan argues that it is moreaccurately represented as the transition from a preoedipal triangle (mother-child-phallus) to an Oedipal QUATERNARY (mother-child-father-phallus). Another possibility is tosee the Oedipus complex as a transition from the preoedipal triangle (mother-child-phallus) to the Oedipal triangle (mother-child-father)