‌‌‌‌　　英：perversion; 法：perversion; 德：Perversion

‌‌‌‌　　性倒错曾经被弗洛伊德定义为任何偏离异性恋生殖器性交规范的性行为模式 (Freud, 1905d)。然而，这则定义因弗洛伊德自己的如下观点而问题化了，即凡是人类的性欲皆具有多形倒错性 (polymorphous perversity), 其特征即在于缺乏任何预先给定的自然秩序。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康把性倒错定义为一种临床结构 (STRUCTURE)而非一种行为模式，从而克服了弗洛伊德理论当中的这一僵局。

什么是性倒错？它并不单纯是一种相对于社会标准的失常，一种不同于良好道德的异常，尽管也不乏这一层面，它也不是一种基于自然标准的非典型性，也就是说，它或多或少地背离了性交结合的繁殖结局。就其真正的结构而言，它是某种别的东西。

(S1,221)

‌‌‌‌　　性倒错行为与性倒错结构之间的此种区分即意味着：虽然某些性行为与性倒错结构存在着紧密的联系，但是那些非倒错的主体也有可能会参与此类行为，而一个性倒错主体同样有可能从未参与过此类行为。此种区分同样意味着一种普遍主义的立场：虽然社会谴责与违背“良好道德”可以是决定一种特殊行为是否具有倒错性的标准，但是这并非性倒错结构的本质。一个性倒错的结构，即便当那些与之联系的行为得到社会赞许的时候，它也仍旧是倒错性的。因此，拉康把同性恋视作一种性倒错，纵使它在古希腊盛行时得到了广泛的容许 (S8,43)(这并非因为同性恋或者任何其他的性欲形式是自然倒错性的：相反，同性恋的倒错性本质完全在于它违反了俄狄浦斯情结的规范化要求[S4,201]。因而，拉康便批评弗洛伊德有时遗忘了异性恋在俄狄浦斯情结中的重要性是一个有关规范而非自然的问题[Ec, 223]。分析家的中立[ncutrality]禁止他偏祖于此类规范，分析家仅仅试图揭露此类规范在主体历史中的影响，而不是捍卫它们或者攻击它们）。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康从两个主要方面来描述性倒错结构的特征。

‌‌‌‌　　・阳具 (PHALLUS)与拒 (DISAVOWAL)性倒错通过拒认的运作而区分于其他的临床结构。性倒错者拒认阉割，他发觉母亲缺乏阳具，但同时又拒绝接受此一创伤性知觉的现实。这一点在恋物癖 (FETISHISM)(即“性倒错中的性倒错”：S4,194)中最明显可见，其中物神是对于母亲欠缺的阳具的一种象征性替代。然而，主体与阳具之间的这种悬而未决的关系，并非恋物癖所独有，而是延伸到了所有的性倒错 (S4,192-3)。“性倒错的全部问题便在于构想出孩子如何在其与母亲的关系中…认同于（母亲）欲望的想象性对象（即阳具）。”(E, 197-8)这就是前俄狄浦斯的想象三角形为什么会在性倒错的结构中扮演如此重要角色的原因所在。在性倒错中，阳具只能起到蒙上面纱 (veiled)的作用（见：拉康对于面纱[vil]在恋物癖、易装癖、同性恋乃至暴露狂中的角色的讨论；S4,159-63).

‌‌‌‌　　·冲动 (DRVE)性倒错同样是主体相对于冲动而定位自身的一种特殊方式。在性倒错中，主体把自身定位为冲动的对象，即定位为他者“享乐”的手段 (S11,185)。如此便颠倒了幻想（FANTASY)的结构，这就是为什么性倒错的公式会作为a◇8，即把幻想的数元进行颠倒，而出现于《康德同萨德》中的第一图式 (Ec, 774)。性倒错者采取的是“享乐意志”(英：will-to-enjoy; 法：volonte-de-jouissance)的对象一工具 (object--instrument)的位置，此种享乐意志并非他自己的意志，而是大他者的意志。性倒错者从事其活动并非出于其自身的快乐，而是为了大他者的享乐。恰恰是在此种工具化之中，即在为大他者的享乐效劳的时候，他才感觉到享乐，“主体在此把自己变成了大他者享乐的工具”(E, 320). 因而，在窥淫癖 (scopophilia, 也拼写为scoptophilia)当中，包括暴露狂和偷窥狂，性倒错者便把自己定位为视界冲动 (scopic drive)的对象。而在施虐狂/受虐狂 (SADISM/MASOCHISM)当中，主体则把自己定位为祈灵冲动 (invocatory drive)的对象 (S11,182-5)。性倒错者即冲动的结构在他身上得到最清楚揭示的人，而且也是携带着最大限度地超越快乐原则的企图的人，“他是可以沿着‘享乐'的道路一直走下去的人”(E, 323).

‌‌‌‌　　弗洛伊德曾说“神经症是对于性倒错的否定”，他的这句评论有时候会被解释为这样的意思：性倒错只不过是在神经症（NEUROSIS)中遭到压抑的某种自然本能的直接表达而已 (Freud, 1905d:SEVⅡ，165)。然而，拉康完全拒绝这种解释 (S4,113,250)。首先，冲动不应被构想为某种能够以直接方式获得释放的自然本能，它不具有满足的零度 (zero degree of satisfaction)。其次，正如上面的评论所清晰阐明的那样，性倒错者与冲动的关系也是同样复杂而精密的，与神经症患者并无二致。从发生发展的观点来看，性倒错与神经症处在同样的水平上，两者皆抵达了俄狄浦斯情结的第三“时间”(S4,251)。性倒错因而“呈现出了（与神经症）同样的维度丰富性、同样的充盈性、同样的节奏、同样的阶段”(S4,133)。因此便有必要换一种方式来解释弗洛伊德的这句评论：性倒错是以一种颠倒于神经症的方式而被结构的，但却是同等地被结构的 (S4,251).

‌‌‌‌　　神经症是以一个问题为特征的，而性倒错则是以这一问题的缺失为特征的：性倒错者并不怀疑他的行动是在服务于大他者的享乐。因而，一个性倒错主体来要求分析便是极其罕见的，而且即便是在他来要求分析的这些罕见的情况下，也不是因为他试图改变自己的享乐模式。这或许就说明了为什么会有很多精神分析家声称精神分析治疗并不适用于性倒错主体，甚至有些拉康派分析家也采取了这样的路线，他们把性倒错者的确信比较于精神病患者的确信，从而指出性倒错者在“假设知道的主体”（subject supposed to know)面前无法占据“不知者”(one who does notknow)的位置(Clavreul,1967)。然而，大多数拉康派分析家并未采纳此种观，点，因为这样的见解与拉康自己的立场并不一致。例如，在1956一1957年度的研讨班上，拉康便指出，弗洛伊德曾经治疗过的那位同性恋少女，她的梦就是转移在性倒错主体身上的一种明显表现(S4,106-7:见：Freud,1920a)。同样，在1960一1961年度的研讨班上，拉康有关转移基础的主要例子也是由被他明确视作性倒错者的阿尔喀比亚德(Alcibiades)来展示的(见：E,323;“阿尔喀比亚德显然不是一位神经症患者”)。因而，拉康认为，对性倒错主体可以在与神经症患者同样的水平上来进行治疗，尽管在治疗的方向上当然会存在一些不同的问题。就此而言，一个重要的蕴涵便在于，对于性倒错主体的精神分析治疗，并不会把消除他的性倒错行为设定为其目标。

‌‌‌‌　　(perversion) Perversion was defined by Freud as any form of sexual behaviour whichdeviates from the norm of heterosexual genital intercourse (Freud, 1905d). However, thisdefinition is problematised by Freud's own notions of the polymorphous perversity of allhuman sexuality, which is characterised by the absence of any pregiven natural order.

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan overcomes this impasse in Freudian theory by defining perversion not as a formof behaviour but as a clinical STRUCTURE.

‌‌‌‌　　What is perversion? It is not simply an aberration in relation to socialcriteria, an anomaly contrary to good morals, although this register is notabsent, nor is it an atypicality according to natural criteria, namely that itmore or less derogates from the reproductive finality of the sexualunion. It is something else in its very structure.

‌‌‌‌　　(S1,221)

‌‌‌‌　　The distinction between perverse acts and the perverse structure implies that, while thereare certain sexual acts which are closely associated with perverse structures, it is alsopossible that such acts may be engaged in by non-perverse subjects, and equally possiblethat a perverse subject may never actually engage in such acts. It also implies auniversalist position; while social disapproval and the infraction of'good morals'may bewhat determines whether a particular act is perverse or not, this is not the essence of theperverse structure. A perverse structure remains perverse even when the acts associatedwith it are socially approved. Hence Lacan regards homosexuality as a perversion evenwhen practised in Ancient Greece, where it was widely tolerated (S8,43). (This is notbecause homosexuality or any other form of sexuality is naturally perverse; on thecontrary, the perverse nature of homosexuality is entirely a question of its infringement ofthe normative requirements of the Oedipus complex (S4,201). Thus Lacan criticises Freud for forgetting at times that the importance of heterosexuality in the Oedipal myth isa question of norms and not of nature (Ec, 223). The analyst's neutrality forbids him fromtaking sides with these norms; rather than defending such norms or attacking them, theanalyst seeks merely to expose their incidence in the subject's history.

‌‌‌‌　　There are two main ways in which Lacan characterises the perverse structure.

‌‌‌‌　　.The PHALLUS and DISAVOWAL Perversion is distinguished from the otherclinical structures by the operation of disavowal. The pervert disavows castration; heperceives that the mother lacks the phallus, and at the same time refuses to accept thereality of this traumatic perception. This is most evident in FETISHISM (the perversionof perversions'; S4,194), where the fetish is a symbolic substitute for the mother'smissing phallus. However, this problematic relation to the phallus is not exclusive tofetishism but extends to all the perversions (S4,192-3).'The whole problem of theperversions consists in conceiving how the child, in his relation to the mother... Identifieshimself with the imaginary object of [her]desire [i.e.the phallus]' (E, 197-8). This iswhy the preoedipal imaginary triangle plays such an important role in the perversestructure. In the perversions, the phallus can only function as veiled (see Lacan'sdiscussion of the role of the veil in fetishism, transvestism, homosexuality andexhibitionism: S4,159-63).

‌‌‌‌　　The DRIVE Perversion is also a particular way in which the subject situates himselfin relation to the drive. In perversion, the subject locates himself as object of the drive, asthe means of the other's jouissance (S11,185). This is to invert the structure ofFANTASY, which is why the formula for perversion appears as ain the first schema in 'Kant with Sade' (Ec, 774), the inversion of the matheme of fantasy. The pervertassumes the position of the object-instrument of the 'will-to-enjoy' (volonte-de-jouissance), which is not his own will but that of the big Other. The pervert does notpursue his activity for his own pleasure, but for the enjoyment of the big Other. He findsenjoyment precisely in this instrumentalisation, in working for the enjoyment of the Other,'the subject here makes himself the instrument of the Other's jouissance' (E, 320). Thus in scopophilia (also spelled scoptophilia), which comprises exhibitionism andvoyeurism, the pervert locates himself as the object of the scopic drive. InSADISM/MASOCHISM, the subject locates himself as the object of the invocatory drive (S11,182-5). The pervert is the person in whom the structure of the drive is most clearlyrevealed, and also the person who carries the attempt to go beyond the pleasure principleto the limit, he who goes as far as he can along the path of jouissance' (E, 323).

‌‌‌‌　　Freud's remark that 'the neuroses are the negative of the perversions'has sometimesbeen interpreted as meaning that perversion is simply the direct expression of a naturalinstinct which is repressed in NEUROSIS (Freud, 1905d: SE VII, 165). However, Lacanrejects this interpretation entirely (S4,113,250). Firstly, the drive is not to be conceivedof as a natural instinct which could be discharged in a direct way; it has no zero degree ofsatisfaction. Secondly, as is clear from the above remarks, the pervert's relation to thedrive is just as complex and elaborated as that of the neurotic. From the point of view ofgenetic development, perversion is at the same level as neurosis; both have reached thethird 'time'of the Oedipus complex (S4,251). Perversion therefore 'presents the samedimensional richness as [a neurosis], the same abundance, the same rhythms, the samestages' (S4,113). It is therefore necessary to interpret Freud's remark in another way: perversion is structured in an inverse way to neurosis, but is equally structured (S4,251).

‌‌‌‌　　While neurosis is characterised by a question, perversion is characterised by the lackof a question; the pervert does not doubt that his acts serve the jouissance of the Other. Thus it is extremely rare for a perverse subject to demand analysis, and in the rare caseswhen he does, it is not because he seeks to change his mode of jouissance. This perhaps explains why many psychoanalysts have argued that psychoanalytic treatment is notappropriate for perverse subjects,a line which even some Lacanian analysts have taken,comparing the certainty of the pervert with that of the psychotic,and arguing thatperverts cannot take the position of'one who does not know'before a'subject supposedto know'(Clavreul,1967).However,most Lacanian analysts do not take this view,sinceit is a view completely at odds with Lacan's own position.In the seminar of 1956-7,forexample,Lacan points to the dream of the young homosexual woman whom Freudtreated as a clear manifestation of transference in a perverse subject (S4,106-7;see Freud,1920a).Also,in the 1960-1 seminar,Lacan's principal example of transference isthat shown by Alcibiades,whom he clearly regards as a pervert(see E,323;'Alcibiadesis certainly not a neurotic').Thus Lacan argues that perverse subjects can be treated at thesame level as neurotics,although there will of course be different problems in thedirection of the treatment.One important implication of this is that the psychoanalytictreatment of a perverse subject does not set as its objective the elimination of his perversebehaviour.