|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2016)05-0151-08 |
| |
|
历史创伤的重复与修通 |
| |
章朋 |
| |
|
（华东师范大学中文系，上海，200241） |
| |
| 摘 要： 在“德国历史学家之争”中，双方忽略了历史研究的移情作用，未能认识到纳粹屠犹的深层动因。拉卡普拉借鉴弗洛伊德的精神分析理论，对欧洲宗教世俗化现象进行了分析，认为纳粹屠犹是一种被压抑了的历史创伤的复归，替罪羊和牺牲是其发挥作用的重要机制。书写创伤是对历史创伤的一种行动化复现，有助于在历史学家与研究对象的移情作用中使历史的压抑物得到释放，使创伤主体获得一种伦理政治主体的能力。拉卡普拉提出批评理论的“伦理转向”，强调历史书写与创伤修通中哀悼的社会伦理维度，它们与社会伦理、政治、经济、文化密切相关，只有在取得更为广泛的社会力量和社会团体支持的语境中，才能确保修通的有效性。 |
| |
| 关键词： 书写创伤；移情；创伤重复；修通；伦理转向 |
| |
|
| |
Repetition and working-through of historical trauma |
| |
ZHANG Peng |
| |
（Department of Chinese Language and Literature, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China） |
| |
| Abstract: In Historikerstreits’ Debate, neither side realized the transference function of history writing or recognized the deep motive of Nazi holocaust. By adopting Freud’s psychoanalysis, LaCapra analyzes the secularization of religion in Europe, believing that the holocaust is a return of repressed historical trauma, and scapegoating and victimization serve as the most important mechanism in its function. Writing trauma is a kind of acting-out of historical trauma, helping to release and to make the return of the history repressed, and making the trauma subject obtain the ability of an ethic politics subject. LaCapra advocates an “ethical turn” in critical theory and emphasizes the social ethic dimension of mourning in working-through and history writing, which are closely related to social ethics, politics, economy, and culture. Only in the context of obtaining wide social force and enough support from social groups, can its effectiveness be assured. |
| |
Key words: writing trauma; transference; traumatic repetition; working-through; ethical turn |
| |
|
|
