The Psychoanalytic Critique of Capitalism and Its Elements

I. Introduction

一、引 言

This article attempts to systematize the psychoanalytic critique of capitalism, aiming to steer contemporary psychoanalytic research back toward, or to initiate a return to, the study of capitalism and its alternatives. Research on this issue revolves around the following questions: What is the psychic foundation of capitalism? How are we integrated into it, and what is its psychic cost? Why does capitalism hold sway over so many of us? How does the economy constrain us? And how do we unconsciously shape and sustain the economy? Furthermore, as David Graeber asks: “What exactly are the possible dimensions of non-alienated experience?” This is the deepest question of critical theory.

本文将尝试把对资本主义的精神分析批判系统化，旨在推动当代精神分析研究转向或回归到对资本主义及其替代方案的研究。关于这一问题的研究主要围绕着下列问题：资本主义的精神基础是什么？我们是如何融入其中的，它的精神代价是什么？为什么资本主义对我们这么多人有控制力？经济是如何制约我们的？我们又是如何在不知不觉中塑造并支持经济的？此外，正如大卫·格雷伯（David Graeber）所追问的：“非异化经验的可能维度究竟是什么？”这是批判理论的最深层次问题。

In addressing these questions, my goal is to begin filling the gap left by the absence of a psychoanalytic approach to capitalism. Although Yannis Stavrakakis, in his recently edited book, offers a brief introduction to capitalism from a Lacanian perspective, the economic sphere remains strikingly neglected by psychoanalytic investigation within the social sciences. A psychoanalysis of capitalism is not without precedent, but it has never coalesced into a conscious field of inquiry. At worst, most research findings are disconnected from one another and often scattered within closed “theoretical black boxes.” Hence, this article aims to encourage dialogue within this “field,” in the hope that a comprehensive psychoanalytic critique of capitalism will emerge as soon as possible.

在描述上述问题时，笔者的目标是着手解决对资本主义的精神分析缺位的问题。尽管雅尼斯·斯塔夫拉卡基斯（Yannis Stavrakakis）在其最近主编的书中从拉康理论的角度对资本主义进行了简短的介绍，但经济问题由于在社会科学中缺乏精神分析调查而出奇地引人注目。对资本主义进行精神分析并非没有先例，但从未形成一个自觉的探究领域。最糟糕的是，大多数研究成果是相互脱节的，而且常常被分散在封闭的“理论黑箱”之中。因此，本文的目的是鼓励这个“领域”内的对话，希望尽早出现一种综合的资本主义精神分析批判。

Overall, social scientists studying economic issues rarely employ psychoanalytic theory. Regrettably, the late father of economic sociology and a trained psychoanalyst, Neil Smelser, never elaborated any “psychoanalytic economic sociology,” aside from occasional mentions in articles written from an Eriksonian perspective. The same holds true for Talcott Parsons, Smelser’s doctoral advisor, who was also trained in psychoanalysis. Similarly, few economists hold a positive view of psychoanalysis, even though some of the most influential economists, such as Joseph Schumpeter and John Maynard Keynes, were favorably disposed toward it. Schumpeter believed that psychoanalysis “has wide possibilities of application in economics.” Keynes was famously fascinated by psychoanalysis and wrote, in a manner very similar to psychoanalytic thinking, that the “essential characteristic of capitalism” is its “dependence on an intense appeal to the money-making and money-loving instincts of individuals as the main motive force of the economic machine.” Although psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic writers frequently touch on economic issues, they have never actually addressed them in any systematic way.

总的来说，研究经济问题的社会科学家很少使用精神分析的理论。令人遗憾的是，已故的经济社会学之父、训练有素的精神分析学家尼尔·斯梅尔瑟（Neil Smelser）除了在从埃里克森理论的角度写作的文章中偶有提及外，从未详细阐述过任何“精神分析经济社会学”。斯梅尔瑟的博士生导师塔尔科特·帕森斯（Talcott Parsons）也是如此，尽管他也受过精神分析学的训练。同样，很少有经济学家对精神分析持肯定态度，尽管一些最具影响力的经济学家，如约瑟夫·熊彼特（Joseph Schumpeter）和约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯（John Maynard Keynes），对精神分析持肯定态度。熊彼特认为，精神分析“在经济学中有广泛应用的可能性”。凯恩斯对精神分析的着迷是出了名的，他以一种非常类似精神分析的方式写道，“资本主义的本质特征”是其“对作为经济机器主要动力的个人赚钱和爱钱本能的强烈诉求的依赖”。虽然精神分析学家和精神分析作家经常提到经济问题，但实际上他们从未以任何系统的方式来论述。

II. A Brief History of the Psychoanalysis of Capitalism

二、资本主义精神分析简史

(1) Beginnings

（一）开端

Sigmund Freud was keen to apply his ideas to economic analysis, drawing a famous comparison between the psychic “economy” and a business enterprise. According to this comparison, libido, as a form of currency, can be stored, invested for profit, or unproductively locked up in neurosis like a dormant asset. Freud overturned the model of “homo economicus,” arguing that emotions and unconscious desires are the key drivers behind human behavior, including in the economic sphere; Keynes’s concept of “animal spirits” can be seen as the psychoanalytic counterpart to “homo economicus.” Freud was open to the possibility of combining psychoanalysis with Marxism.

西格蒙德·弗洛伊德（Sigmund Freud）热衷于将其观点应用于经济分析，他进行过一个关于精神“经济”与商业企业的著名比较。根据这种比较，力比多（libido）作为一种货币形式，可以通过各种方式存储、投资盈利，或者像沉睡的资产一样被非生产性地封闭在神经症中。弗洛伊德推翻了“经济人”模型，他认为，情感和无意识的欲望是人类行为背后的关键驱动力，在经济领域也是如此，凯恩斯的“动物精神”概念可以被视为“经济人”的精神分析对应物。弗洛伊德对将精神分析与马克思主义相结合的可能性持开放态度。

In his early works, Freud conceptualized humans as torn between two forces: on one hand, their libidinal energy, rooted in the id, seeks pleasure, play, and love—what he called the “pleasure principle”; on the other hand, he conceptualized the “reality principle” as the constraint of the economy. Thus, the essence of the ego lies in the fact that repressed desires cannot be satisfied within the harsh economic reality, which is partly reflected in the prohibitions and injunctions of the superego.

弗洛伊德在其早期作品中将人类概念化为两方面的冲突：一方面，他们的力比多能量根植于本我，寻求快乐、游戏和爱，他称之为“快乐原则”；另一方面，他将“现实原则”概念化为经济的约束。因此，自我的本质在于被压抑的欲望在严酷的经济现实中无法得到满足，这在一定程度上反映在超我的禁止和禁令上。

However, starting in 1920, Freud moved away from the opposition between “libido” and “economy,” emphasizing something more unsettling: the conflict between libidinal repression (Eros) and the death drive [or Thanatos, though Freud himself never used this term]. The death drive refers to the self-destructive tendency to repeat trauma, loss, and failure; an experience that provides the subject with a certain satisfaction but is itself devoid of pleasure. It can be understood as an impulse aimed at ridding oneself of all tension to achieve complete stillness and rest. Freud called this the “Nirvana principle,” a principle with profound economic implications.

然而，自1920年开始，弗洛伊德从“力比多”与“经济”的对立中走了出来，强调一些更加令人不安的东西：力比多压抑（Eros，厄洛斯）与死亡驱力\[或桑纳托斯（Thanatos），尽管弗洛伊德本人从未使用过这个词\]之间的冲突。死亡驱力指的是重复创伤、损失和失败的自我毁灭倾向；一种为主体提供某种满足、但本身并没有乐趣的体验。它可以被理解为一种冲动，旨在摆脱所有的紧张关系，以达到完全的静止和休息。弗洛伊德将其称之为“涅槃原则”（Nirvana-principle），这个原则具有深远的经济意义。

(2) Early Psychoanalytic Views on Money

（二）早期精神分析对金钱的看法

Freud’s early followers wrote several articles on economic issues, focusing primarily on the psychoanalysis of money. For them and for Freud, the connection between money and feces is deeply rooted in our psyche: “Wherever the archaic mode of thinking predominates or persists … money is brought into the most intimate connection with excrement.” Géza Róheim noted that in Melanesia, shells used as money are also called “excrement of the sea.” Ernest Borneman discovered hundreds of German and English expressions linking money to excrement. According to recent research, this connection can be traced back to the infant’s earliest relationships and sensations. In this initial framework, the accumulation of money is seen as a form of retention, stemming from excessive toilet training in childhood and associated with a character type supposedly well-suited to capitalist society—the “anal character”—characterized by orderliness, parsimony, and obstinacy.

弗洛伊德的早期追随者们写了一些关于经济问题的文章，他们主要关注的是对金钱的精神分析。对于他们和弗洛伊德来说，金钱与粪便之间的联系深深地植根于我们的心灵：“只要是古老的思维模式占主导地位或持续存在的地方……金钱与粪便的关系就最为密切。”格扎·罗海姆（Géza Róheim）指出，在美拉尼西亚（Melanesian），用作金钱的贝壳也被称为“海洋的排泄物”。欧内斯特·鲍内曼（Ernest Borneman）则发现了数百个将金钱与排泄物联系起来的德语和英语表达。根据最近的研究，这种联系可以追溯到婴儿最初的关系和感觉。在这个最初的框架中，金钱的积累被视为一种保留形式，这源于儿童时期过度的如厕训练，并与一种据称很适合资本主义社会的性格类型——“肛门型性格”（anal character）——相关联，其特征是整洁、节俭和自律。

(3) The Expansion of Psychoanalytic Research on Capitalism

（三）资本主义精神分析研究的拓展

Among the early psychoanalysts, four outstanding Austrian-born “outsiders” also studied economic issues. On the political right, Edward Bernays and Ernest Dichter had a profound impact on the management of 20th-century capitalism. Bernays, Freud’s nephew, was a pioneer in public relations and propaganda, applying psychoanalytic tools to areas such as tobacco and banana companies. Dichter pioneered the field of marketing and applied Freudian methods to the study of consumer behavior and advertising. This psychoanalytic tradition persists and is not limited to Freudian theory. Carl Jung’s ideas have also been adopted by professional marketers who seek to influence consumers using “deep metaphors” (archetypes).

早期的精神分析学家中有四位杰出的奥地利裔“异类”，他们也在研究经济问题。在政治右翼中，爱德华·伯奈斯（Edward Bernays）和欧内斯特·狄希特（Ernest Dichter）对20世纪的资本主义管理产生了深远的影响。弗洛伊德的侄子伯奈斯是公共关系和宣传领域的先驱，他将精神分析工具应用于烟草和香蕉公司等领域。狄希特则开创了市场营销领域，并将弗洛伊德的方法应用于对消费者行为和广告业的研究。这种精神分析的传统仍然存在，并不局限于弗洛伊德的理论。卡尔·荣格（Carl Jung）的观点也被那些试图用“深层隐喻”（原型）来影响消费者的专业营销人员所采用。

Among the radical left, the anarchist psychoanalyst Otto Gross was the first scholar to use Freud’s ideas to critique capitalism, proposing an alternative based on early forms of feminism and sexual liberation. Similarly, the radical psychiatrist Wilhelm Reich elaborated the first attempt to reconcile psychoanalysis with Marxism. Like Gross, Reich recognized that individual therapy would always remain limited unless combined with broader social change. He specifically pointed out that the traditional patriarchal and authoritarian family model was a veritable “factory” of reactionary ideologies and structures: this model suppressed and often cruelly treated the libido, ultimately underpinning the entire political-economic structure of capitalism. He called his method “sex-economy,” thereby emphasizing that both sexual liberation and economic liberation were necessary for genuine emancipation. If life energy were allowed to flow freely through appropriate social transformation, neurosis and the capitalist spirit of possession, conquest, and accumulation could be subverted. These ideas had a major influence on the Frankfurt School, as well as on Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari’s *Capitalism and Schizophrenia* — although this is not always properly acknowledged.

在激进左翼中，无政府主义精神分析学家奥托·格罗斯（Otto Gross）是第一个使用弗洛伊德的思想来批判资本主义的学者，他基于早期的女性主义和性解放形式提出了替代方案。同样，激进的精神病学家威廉·赖希（Wilhelm Reich）阐述了调和精神分析与马克思主义的第一次尝试。与格罗斯一样，赖希也意识到，除非与更广泛的社会变革相结合，否则个体治疗将永远是有限的。他特别指出，传统的父权制和专制家庭模式是名副其实的反动意识形态和结构的“工厂”：这种模式压制并经常残酷地对待力比多，最终支撑着资本主义的整个政治经济结构。他把其方法称为“性经济”，从而强调了性解放和经济解放对真正的解放来说都是必要的。如果允许生命能量通过适当的社会转型自由流动，神经症以及占有、征服和积累的资本主义精神就可以被颠覆。这些思想对法兰克福学派，以及吉尔·德勒兹（Gilles Deleuze）和费利克斯·加塔利（Félix Guattari）的《资本主义与精神分裂》（Capitalism and Schizophrenia）一书产生了重大影响——尽管这一点并不总是得到恰当的承认。

(IV) Postwar Boom

（四）战后繁荣

The “Glorious Thirty” (1945–1975, the thirty years of French economic growth) witnessed a flourishing of psychoanalytic approaches to economic issues — particularly the work carried out by the Frankfurt School, the Tavistock Institute, and French poststructuralism. It was not until the end of the 1970s that this encounter between psychoanalysis and economics became highly influential.

“光荣的30年”（1945—1975年，法国经济增长的30年）见证了对经济问题进行精神分析的繁荣——特别是法兰克福学派、塔维斯托克研究所和法国后结构主义开展的研究。直到1970年代末，这种精神分析与经济学的相遇才变得非常有影响力。

The Frankfurt School’s “Freudian Marxism” extended some of the theories initially proposed by Reich. Scholars of this school argued that Marx’s analysis of the superstructure had to be further refined. To this end, they re-examined German idealism, especially Hegel’s theory, and applied insights from sociology and psychoanalysis. They showed how social structures appear in the deepest recesses of our psyche — in our blind spots, neuroses, pleasures, and frustrations — through the culture industry. Few members of the Frankfurt School explicitly addressed economic issues from a psychoanalytic perspective; the most prominent were Herbert Marcuse and Erich Fromm (who had enormous influence beyond academia), along with many distinguished fellow travelers such as David Riesman, Walter Weisskopf, Norman Brown, and later Russell Jacoby, Christopher Lasch, and Joel Kovel. This group continues to resonate in contemporary social thought and has inspired scholars such as Anselm Jappe and Hartmut Rosa.

法兰克福学派的“弗洛伊德主义的马克思主义”扩展了赖希最初提出的一些理论。该学派的学者认为，必须进一步完善马克思对上层建筑的分析。为此，他们重新审视了德国观念论，尤其是黑格尔的理论，并运用了社会学和精神分析的见解。他们展示了社会结构如何通过文化工业出现在我们心灵的最深处，以及我们的盲点、神经症、快乐和沮丧中。从精神分析的角度明确论述经济问题的法兰克福学派成员很少，最突出的是赫伯特·马尔库塞（Herbert Marcuse）和埃里希·弗洛姆（Erich Fromm）（他们有着超出学术界的巨大影响力），及其许多杰出的同路人，如大卫·理斯曼（David Riesman）、沃尔特·维斯科普夫（Walter Weisskopf）、诺曼·布朗（Norman Brown），以及后来的拉塞尔·雅各比（Russell Jacoby）、克里斯托弗·拉希（Christopher Lasch）和乔尔·科威尔（Joel Kovel）。这一群体继续在当代社会思想中产生共鸣，并启发了安塞姆·贾佩（Anselm Jappe）和哈特穆特·罗萨（Hartmut Rosa）等学者。

In London, the Tavistock Institute played a pioneering role in the psychoanalysis of capitalist corporations. Early collaborators of the Institute included Wilfred Bion, who was influenced by Melanie Klein. Bion believed that groups and organizations have an unconscious life that can be psychoanalyzed. This approach originated from the idea that modern psychoanalysis could “revolutionize” workplace relations. Eventually, two camps emerged: one managerial, seeking to “cure” organizations and reform capitalism, and the other more critical, seeking post-capitalist alternatives. A minority of socialist Kleinians associated with the Tavistock Institute explicitly addressed capitalism.

在伦敦，塔维斯托克研究所在对资本主义公司进行精神分析方面发挥了开拓性的作用。该研究所的早期合作者包括受到梅兰妮·克莱茵（Melanie Klein）影响的威尔弗雷德·比昂（Wilfred Bion）。比昂认为，团体和组织都有可以进行精神分析的无意识生命。这种研究方法源于这样一种观点，即现代精神分析可以“彻底改变”职场关系。最终出现了两个阵营：一个是寻求“治愈”组织和改革资本主义的管理阵营，另一个是寻求后资本主义替代方案的更具有批判性的阵营。少数与塔维斯托克研究所有联系的社会主义的克莱茵学派明确提到了资本主义。

In France, poststructuralist intellectuals wrote extensively on the connection between the libido and capitalism. Most of them had a complex relationship with Jacques Lacan, the major pioneer of French psychoanalysis. Lacan argued that our transition from “nature” to “culture” is accompanied by a profound sense of loss or lack, which affects all our subsequent pursuits. He explained that every infant experiences a first loss when they realize they cannot permanently possess the mother. Consequently, throughout their lives, subjects unconsciously seek the elusive “object-cause of desire” that attracts the caregiver. Then, when the infant acquires language and internalizes the established cultural order — which Lacan calls the “Symbolic” order or the “Other” of the subject — they undergo a second loss. Because any system of signification will forever be incomplete, the subject will never be able to fully capture what must be expressed or understood — what Lacan calls the “Real.” This again generates frustration and desire; the infant’s alienation from the Other produces a longing for a fullness that perpetually eludes them. Thus, desire has a fundamentally traumatic origin and an exogenous, unattainable nature, which has important implications for understanding capitalism.

在法国，后结构主义知识分子就力比多与资本主义之间的联系撰写了大量的文章。他们中的大多数人都与法国精神分析的主要开创者雅克·拉康（Jacques Lacan）有着复杂的关系。拉康认为，在我们从“自然”进入“文化”的过程中伴随着一种深刻的失落感或匮乏感，这影响了我们后续所有的追求。他解释说，每个婴儿在意识到自己无法永久拥有母亲时，都会经历第一次失去。因此，在他们的一生中，主体会下意识地寻找这个吸引照料者的难以捉摸的“欲望的客体—成因”（object-cause of desire）。然后，当婴儿习得语言并内化既定的文化秩序——拉康称之为“象征”秩序或主体的“他者”——时，他们经历了第二次失去。因为任何表意系统都将永远是不完整的，主体将永远无法完全捕捉到必须被表达或被理解的东西——拉康所谓的“真实”。这再次产生了挫败感和欲望，婴儿与他者的疏离产生了对一种永远困扰着他们的充实感的渴望。因此，欲望从根本上具有创伤性的起源，以及外生的和无法实现的本质，这对理解资本主义具有重要意义。

(V) New Developments under the Influence of Neoliberal Thought

（五）新自由主义思潮影响下的新发展

The 1980s and 1990s witnessed the rise of a Lacanian approach to the critique of capitalism, influenced by the Ljubljana School and the post-Marxist Essex School. The Ghent School and the Lacanian approach to growth and development represent the most recent branches of this research. In addition, a Latin American branch led by David Pavón-Cuéllar is emerging. These Lacan-inspired critiques initially mostly proceeded from an elaboration of Marx’s concepts of “ideology” and “hegemony.” In brief, a key idea can be summarized as follows: the inevitable and painful gap between the “Symbolic” and the “Real” is ultimately “sutured” in the “Imaginary” through recourse to a variety of fantasies. If “capital itself is the Real of our time,” then its connection to capitalism becomes obvious. As we have seen, fantasy, desire, and the denial of counter-evidence become key means by which capitalism sustains itself ideologically, economically, and politically.

1980年代和1990年代见证了拉康学派资本主义批判研究方法的兴起，这受到了卢布尔雅那学派和后马克思主义的埃塞克斯学派的影响。根特学派、关于增长和发展的拉康学派代表了这些研究的最新分支。此外，由大卫·帕文-奎利亚尔（David Pavón-Cuéllar）牵头的拉丁美洲分支机构正在兴起。这些受拉康启发的批判最初大多是从阐述马克思的“意识形态”和“霸权”概念出发的。简而言之，一个关键的思想可以概括为：“象征”与“真实”之间不可避免的且痛苦的鸿沟，通过诉诸于各种各样的幻想，最终在“想象”中得到“缝合”。如果说“资本本身就是我们这个时代的真实”，那么它与资本主义之间的联系就显而易见了。正如我们所看到的，幻想、欲望和对反证的否认成为资本主义在意识形态、经济和政治上维持自身生存的关键手段。

Since the mid-1980s, a small number of Jungian and Jung-inspired scholars have also written on economic issues, such as Theodore Abt, Luigi Zoja, Andrew Samuels, Bernard Lietaer, and Tomáš Sedláček. Jung never wrote systematically about economic issues, though he offered a severe critique of capitalist modernity, extending the concept of alienation. For him, the root of alienation lies in modernity’s overconfidence in the conscious ego, which separates the subject from its “Self” (their entire psyche, including conscious and unconscious, as well as body, mind, and spirit), thereby creating a profound sense of meaninglessness and disorientation. This form of alienation hinders the process of “individuation,” the lifelong journey of developing one’s unique potential by integrating conscious and unconscious contents.

自1980年代中期以来，少数荣格学派的学者和受荣格启发的学者也撰写了关于经济问题的文章，如西奥多·阿布特（Theodore Abt）、鲁格·肇嘉（Luigi Zoja）、安德鲁·塞缪尔斯（Andrew Samuels）、伯纳德·利埃塔尔（Bernard Lietaer）和托马斯·赛德拉切克（Tomáš Sedláček）。荣格从未系统地写过关于经济问题的文章，不过他对资本主义现代性提出了严厉的批判，扩展了异化的概念。对他来说，异化的根源在于现代性对有意识的自我的过度自信，这种自我将主体与其“自我”（他们的整个精神，包括有意识和无意识，以及身体、心灵和头脑）分离开来，从而创造了一种深刻的无意义感和迷失感。这种形式的异化阻碍了“个体化”的进程，即通过整合有意识和无意识的内容来发展个人独特潜能的终身旅程。

As Cornelius Castoriadis once said, we have a wealth of ideas in this area that might one day produce a synthetic “economic psychoanalysis” capable of discerning the “true” meaning of economic values, norms, and behaviors; linking them to political-economic structures and cultural structures; and guiding the construction of post-capitalist alternatives that promote human and non-human flourishing. In what follows, I will review these ideas and propose an overarching typology that can bring them together.

正如科内利乌斯·卡斯托里亚迪斯（Cornelius Castoriadis）曾经说过的那样，我们在这方面有着丰富的思想，有朝一日可能会产生一种综合的“经济精神分析”，它能够辨别经济价值观、规范和行为的“真正”含义；将其与政治经济结构和文化结构联系起来；指导后资本主义替代方案的构建，促进人类和非人类的繁荣。在下文中，笔者将回顾这些思想，并提出一个能够将其结合在一起的整体类型学。

III. Four Directions of the Psychoanalytic Critique of Capitalism

三、资本主义精神分析批判的四个方向

The psychoanalytic model of the “economic actor” corresponds to an individual caught between instinctual drives and moral principles (Freud), between the expression and repression of life energy (Reich), between the real and the symbolic (Lacan), and between opposing archetypes (Jung). The formation and resolution of these conflicts depend on multiple factors, including personal ability, childhood, gender, education, or culture, but it also depends heavily on the economic system in which the subject lives. This system will define the structures of oppression and privilege, as well as certain key ideological narratives that force the subject to individuate.

“经济参与者”的精神分析模型对应于一个个体，他夹在本能驱力与道德原则（弗洛伊德）之间，夹在生命能量的表达与压抑（赖希）之间，夹在真实与象征（拉康）之间，夹在相反的原型（荣格）之间。这些冲突的形成和解决取决于多种因素，包括个人能力、童年、性别、教育或文化，但它也在很大程度上取决于主体所生活的经济体系。这个体系将定义压迫和特权的结构，以及一些关键的意识形态叙事，这些叙事将使主体不得不个体化。

First, individuals can collectively introject a specific set of political-economic norms and values. Individuals can also project unconscious material onto economic phenomena or economic actors, for purposes of generation or reinforcement—for example, when the working class identifies with the upper class to protect itself from enduring feelings of powerlessness (projective identification). Often, this relationship is bidirectional (introjective and projective) and produces a powerful reinforcement mechanism, which helps explain why an unjust and unsustainable system like capitalism persists.

首先，个体可以共同内摄（introject）一个特定的政治经济规范和价值观。个体也可以将无意识的材料投射（projective）到经济现象或经济参与者身上，以达到产生或强化的目的，例如，当工人阶级认同上层阶级以保护自己免于承受无力感（投射性认同）时。通常，这种关系是双向的（内摄的和投射的），并产生一种强有力的强化机制，这有助于解释为什么像资本主义这样不公正、不可持续的制度仍然存在。

Psychoanalysts have challenged the defects of capitalism from different angles. I propose a “roadmap” that will help integrate research findings on the psychoanalytic critique of capitalism. It is a typology composed of four key “mainstreams,” each symbolized by a mythological figure: Eros, Thanatos, Ahriman, and Lucifer. Eros and Thanatos are well known in psychoanalytic literature: Eros represents life energy (libido) related to sex, love, and creativity, while Thanatos represents death energy (death drive) related to destruction and aggression. The repression of Eros leads to various forms of alienation, while the enactment of Thanatos leads to self-harm and compulsive repetition.

精神分析学家从不同的角度对资本主义的缺陷提出了质疑。笔者提出了一个“路线图”，它将有助于整合对资本主义进行精神分析批判的研究成果。它是由四个关键的“主流”组成的类型学，分别以四个神话人物为象征，即厄洛斯、桑纳托斯、阿里曼（Ahriman）和路西法（Lucifer）。厄洛斯和桑纳托斯在精神分析文献中广为人知：厄洛斯代表与性、爱和创造力相关的生命能量（力比多），而桑纳托斯代表与毁灭和侵略相关的死亡能量（死亡驱力）。对厄洛斯的压抑导致了异化的各种形式，而桑纳托斯的上演则导致了自我伤害和强迫性重复。

In contrast, the figures of Ahriman and Lucifer are less commonly used by psychoanalysts. Jung occasionally mentions both, but Rudolf Steiner conceptualized them as two key “adversaries” of humanity: Ahriman represents materialism, mercantilism, and technological abuse; Lucifer represents intellectualism, abstraction, and arrogance. From a psychoanalytic perspective, broadly speaking, Ahrimanic impulses refer to basic drives that prioritize individual bodily pleasure and combine them with a will to power; Luciferian tendencies are a narcissistic overvaluation of the individual’s conscious self, denial of material constraints, and a propensity for grandiosity. Both tendencies indicate an incapacity for love and can be understood as overcompensation for existential fear.

相比之下，阿里曼和路西法的形象并不常被精神分析学家所使用。有时候，荣格会提到二者，但鲁道夫·斯坦纳（Rudolf Steiner）将其概念化为人类的两个关键“对手”，阿里曼代表物质主义、重商主义和技术滥用，路西法代表理智主义、抽象主义和傲慢自大。从精神分析的角度来看，广义上讲，阿里曼冲动（Ahrimanic impulses）是指优先考虑个体身体愉悦的基本驱力，并将其与权力欲相结合；而路西法倾向则是自恋地高估了个体的有意识的自我，否认物质上的限制，并倾向于夸大其词。这两种倾向都表明没有爱的能力，可以理解为对抵御存在性恐惧的过度补偿。

From this perspective, these four research themes capture trends in the psychoanalytic critique of capitalism, each linked to specific scholars and contributions. For example, the critiques of Gross, Reich, and Marcuse can be linked to sexual repression (Eros); the Lacanian school is particularly interested in compulsive repetition (Thanatos); early Freudian school concerns accumulation, greed, and their connection to bodily pleasure (Ahriman); Jung and Fromm explored the dangers of overconfident intellect (Lucifer).

由此来看，这四个研究主题可以捕捉到资本主义精神分析批判的趋势，每一个主题都可以与特定的学者和成果联系在一起。例如，格罗斯、赖希和马尔库塞的批判可以与性压抑（厄洛斯）联系在一起；拉康学派对强迫性重复特别感兴趣（桑纳托斯）；早期的弗洛伊德学派关心的是积累、贪婪及其与身体愉悦的联系（阿里曼）；荣格和弗洛姆探讨过过分自信的理智的危险（路西法）。

(1) Eros: Capitalist Repression and the Alienation It Produces

（一）厄洛斯：资本主义的压抑以及由此产生的异化

This line of critique holds that capitalism creates “false needs” and channels libido (Eros) in ways that are existentially harmful to the subject while benefiting capital.

这条批判路线认为，资本主义创造了“虚假需求”，并引导力比多（厄洛斯）以一种存在上对主体有害的方式获得资本的优势。

Marcuse argued that capitalism imposes a one-dimensional world of commodities, including “one-dimensional sex,” on the subject. He elaborated how capitalism’s competitive “performance principle” prevents subjects from sublimating their libidinal energy in creative ways—a phenomenon he called “repressive desublimation.” Deleuze and Guattari also argued that capitalism succeeds more than any previous mode of production in separating labor from life energy. They wrote that capitalist society is unique in human history because it tends to reduce investment in anything with intrinsic value, replacing it with quantified monetary value.

马尔库塞声称，资本主义将一维的商品世界，包括“一维的性”，强加于主体。他阐述了资本主义的竞争性“绩效原则”如何阻止主体以创造性的方式升华其力比多能量——他将这种现象称为“压抑性去升华”。德勒兹和加塔利也认为，资本主义比以往任何生产方式都更成功地将劳动力与生命能量分离开来。他们写道，资本主义社会在人类历史上是独一无二的，因为它倾向于减少对所有具有内在价值的东西的投资，代之以量化的货币价值。

For Marcuse, Deleuze, and Guattari, Freud failed to develop the liberatory possibilities of his theory. Thus, Marcuse sought to demonstrate that human drives are not only biologically fixed but also socially and historically constructed, creating possibilities for liberation. He argued that we need to reconnect body and passion (Eros) with reason (Logos). He hoped for Eros and Logos to be on equal footing, and unlike Freud, he viewed unconscious resources as potential supports for progressive social change. Deleuze and Guattari also argued that the commodification process not only fosters exploitation but also liberates (or detaches) desire from “social norms,” thereby releasing vast amounts of “free-flowing energy” that capital does not always recapture for private accumulation. Thus, for them, desire is not linked to any primordial loss; it can be subversive.

对于马尔库塞、德勒兹和加塔利来说，弗洛伊德未能发展出其理论的解放可能性。因此，马尔库塞试图证明，人类的驱力不仅在生物学上是固定的，而且是社会和历史建构起来的，这为解放创造了可能性。他认为，我们需要将身体和激情（厄洛斯）与理性（逻各斯）重新连接起来。他希望厄洛斯和逻各斯处于同等地位，且与弗洛伊德不同的是，他把无意识的资源视为进步的社会变革的潜在支持力量。德勒兹和加塔利也认为，商品化过程不仅助长了剥削，还使欲望从“社会规范”中解放（或脱离）出来，从而释放出大量的“自由流动的能量”，而资本并不总是为了私人积累而重新获取这些能量。因此，对于他们来说，欲望与任何原始的损失无关，它可能是颠覆性的。

Freud always maintained that society requires some intelligent repression of individual instincts: this may lead to collective neurosis, but it also ensures socio-economic reproduction and allows for constructive sublimation. For Marcuse, some form of “basic repression” may be necessary for social life, but various forms of coercive “surplus repression” are not, and this is where things can be changed. Over the past 40 years, Christophe Dejours has clinically studied processes of repression and sublimation in French workplaces. He argues that the social organization of work can be a “shortcut” for expressing or sublimating libidinal energy; however, neoliberalism undermines the possibility of fostering this process. Similarly, outside the workplace, Rosa proposes the concept of “resonance.” Resonance has a quasi-physical quality (vibration) and involves body, mind, and spirit. Rosa argues that capitalism’s addiction to growth prevents resonance from occurring because it constantly accelerates and produces long-term exhaustion.

弗洛伊德始终认为，社会需要对个体的本能施加一些明智的压抑：这可能会导致集体神经症，但它也确保了社会经济的再生产，并允许出现建设性的升华。对于马尔库塞来说，某种形式的“基本压抑”可能是社会生活所必需的，但采取各种形式的强制的“过剩压抑”则并非如此，而这正是事情可以被改变的地方。在过去的40年里，克里斯托夫·德尤尔（Christophe Dejours）一直在临床研究法国工作场所中的压抑和升华过程。他认为，社会组织的工作可能是表达或升华力比多能量的“捷径”，然而，新自由主义破坏了培育这一进程的可能性。同样，在工作场所之外，罗萨提出了“共鸣”的概念。共鸣具有一种准物理性质（振动），并涉及身体、心灵和头脑。罗萨认为，资本主义的增长成瘾阻止了共鸣的发生，因为它不断加速，并产生了长期的消耗。

From Reich to Rosa, this line of critique has produced a wealth of influential theory, but it has also attracted criticism. Jean-François Lyotard did not agree with Marcuse’s view that capitalism “alienates” its subjects and represses “healthy” Eros. He argued that no standard can define healthy Eros, because our libidinal investments have a deep-seated ambiguity that will always pervade society.

从赖希到罗萨，这种批判路线产生了大量有影响的理论，但也招致了批评。让-弗朗索瓦·利奥塔（Jean-Francois Lyotard）并不赞同马尔库塞的观点，即资本主义“疏远”了它的主体，压抑了“健康的”厄洛斯。他认为，不可能有任何标准来定义健康的厄洛斯，因为我们的力比多投注具有一种根深蒂固的模糊性，这种模糊性将永远弥漫在社会中。

(2) Thanatos: The Endless Movement of Capitalism

（二）桑纳托斯：资本主义的无尽运动

Lacan argued that the death drive explains the dynamics of capitalism better than Eros and its repression. Unlike Marcuse and Deleuze, Todd McGowan writes: “Many critics of capitalism fail to see that desire itself… is the problem rather than the solution.”

拉康认为，死亡驱力比厄洛斯及其压抑更能解释资本主义的动力。与马尔库塞和德勒兹不同，托德·麦高恩（Todd McGowan）写道：“许多资本主义批判者没有看到，欲望本身……是问题而非解决方案。”

In the late 1960s, in addition to proposing his famous “four discourses,” Lacan occasionally commented on a fifth discourse—the “capitalist discourse”—attempting thereby to explain the well-known endless movement of the capitalist economy. In it, he offered a non-Marxist explanation of the dynamics of capitalism. For him, capitalism exploits the subject’s primordial loss for its own profit. Essentially, capitalism assumes that this loss has a solution, because the desire thus generated can be satisfied through commodities. Even if ultimate satisfaction is an illusion, the object-cause of desire is real in the subject’s psyche.

1960年代末，拉康除了提出其著名的“四大话语”之外，还偶尔评论过第五个话语——“资本主义话语”，试图以此解释众所周知的资本主义经济永无止境的运动。在其中，他提供了一种非马克思主义的资本主义动力解释。对于他来说，资本主义利用主体的原始性丧失（primordial loss）来为自己牟利。从本质上讲，资本主义假定这种丧失是有解决办法的，因为由此产生的欲望可以通过商品得到满足。即使最终的满足是一种幻觉，欲望的客体成因在主体的心灵中也是真实的。

It is meaningless, as some critics of consumerism claim, to say that capitalism “creates” desire or false needs. On the contrary, capitalism, like any economic system, channels already existing desire in a particular way. From this perspective, the concept of “alienation” becomes problematic if it is based on a claim to restore a healthy “human essence,” because we are universally alienated from the very beginning.

就像一些消费主义的批评者所说的那样，资本主义“创造”欲望或虚假需求是毫无意义的。相反，资本主义像任何经济制度一样，以一种特殊的方式来引导已经存在的欲望。从这个角度来看，“异化”的概念如果建立在声称要恢复健康的“人的本质”的基础上，就会产生问题，因为我们从一开始就普遍地被异化了。

For the Lacanian school, capitalist ideology is rooted in a promise of a future of full satisfaction based on consumption. In reality, however, the capitalist subject endlessly oscillates between “success and failure, satisfaction and emptiness, infinite credit and infinite debt.” [8]8 Todd McGowan, *Enjoying What We Don’t Have: The Political Project of Psychoanalysis* (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2013), 1. What remains unconscious in this process is that the repetition of the inability to attain full satisfaction is actually a hidden source of enjoyment. The consumer is rationally aware that consumption does not make them happier, but at the same time they are unconsciously drawn to their own failure, which in turn fuels their desire. While desire seeks the “lost object,” drives are attracted by the primordial loss itself, so they can only endlessly circle around it, never finding it. Most importantly, since desire is always the desire of the Other, the subject’s primary question is not “What do I desire?” but “What should I desire?” Thus, ideology activates and manages desire while teaching us how to desire. This Lacanian understanding of ideology does not always conflict with that of “Freudian Marxism,” for example, when Marcuse points out that the modern subject “desires what he should desire.” [9]9 Herbert Marcuse, *One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society* (Boston: Beacon Press, 1964), 5.

对于拉康学派来说，资本主义意识形态根植于对基于消费的充分满足的未来的承诺。然而，在现实中，资本主义主体无休止地在“成功与失败、满足与空虚、无限信用与无限债务”之间摇摆。在这个过程中仍然无意识的是，无法达到完全满足的重复其实是一个隐藏的快乐源泉。消费者理性地意识到，消费并不会使他们更快乐，但与此同时，他们又无意识地被自己的失败所吸引，这又激发了他们的欲望。当欲望寻找“丢失的客体”时，驱力被原始的丢失本身所吸引，因此它们只能无休止地围绕着它循环，却永远找不到它。最重要的是，由于欲望总是他者的欲望，主体的主要问题不是“我渴望什么”，而是“我应该渴望什么”。因此，意识形态激活并管理欲望，同时教我们如何渴望。拉康主义对意识形态的这种理解并不总是与“弗洛伊德主义的马克思主义”的理解相冲突，例如，当马尔库塞指出现代主体“渴望他应该渴望的东西”时。

McGowan argues that capitalism’s “genius” lies in incorporating primordial loss into its core, into the fetishized concept of the commodity. [10]10 Todd McGowan, *Capitalism and Desire: The Psychic Cost of Free Markets* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016), 1. Consequently, the superego of contemporary capitalism does not repress desire but instead commands us to satisfy it. The new superego imperative—“Enjoy!”—applies to all classes and explains why Lacan believed that in capitalism “every individual is truly a proletarian.” [11]11 Jacques Lacan, *The Other Side of Psychoanalysis: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XVII*, trans. Russell Grigg (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), 207. McGowan writes that from this perspective, “the feeling that capitalism fits our mode of desire is not entirely ideological,” because “the emergence of capitalism and its psychic appeal are related to the nature of human subjectivity.” [12]12 McGowan, *Capitalism and Desire*, 2. Although nothing is inevitable in the development of capitalism, “one might say that we are psychically predisposed to invest ourselves in the capitalist system,” [13]13 McGowan, *Capitalism and Desire*, 2. which explains why capitalism holds such extraordinary power over us.

麦高恩认为，资本主义的“天赋”在于将原始丧失纳入其核心，纳入被盲目崇拜的商品概念中。因此，当代资本主义的超我并不压抑欲望，反而命令我们去满足欲望。新的超我命令——“享受！”——适用于所有阶级，并解释了为什么拉康认为在资本主义中“每个个体都是真正的无产者”。麦高恩写道，从这个角度来看，“资本主义适合我们的欲望模式的感觉并不完全是意识形态的”，因为“资本主义的出现及其精神吸引力与人类主体性的本质有关”。虽然在资本主义发展中没有什么是不可避免的，但“有人可能会说，我们在精神上倾向于将自己投资于资本主义制度”，这就解释了为什么资本主义对我们有着非同寻常的控制力。

Much contemporary Lacanian social critique displays a pessimistic tone, yet Lacan himself proposed a way out that is rarely discussed by Lacanians: what he calls the posture of the “saint.” For Lacan, the “saint” seems related to the ancient spiritual idea of non-attachment: “the saint refuses enjoyment.” [14]14 Jacques Lacan, *The Triumph of Religion, preceded by Discourse to Catholics*, trans. Bruce Fink (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013), 64. We can contrast this with Slavoj Žižek’s observation that “the lesson of the drive is that we are condemned to enjoyment: whatever we do, enjoyment persists; we can never get rid of it; even if we try to renounce it with the most thorough effort, it contaminates our very effort to get rid of it.” [15]15 Slavoj Žižek, *The Parallax View* (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 62. Pieter de Vries, Ceren Özselçuk, and Yahya Madra can be seen as exceptions within the Lacanian school, as they consider enjoyment or desire to be potentially constructive in post-capitalist politics. [16]16 See, for example, Pieter de Vries, “The Dialectics of Enjoyment: An Ethnography of the ‘Other’ in the Andes,” *Journal of Latin American Anthropology* 7, no. 2 (2002): 2–33; Ceren Özselçuk and Yahya Madra, “Psychoanalysis and Marxism: From Capitalist-All to Communist Non-All,” *Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society* 10, no. 1 (2005): 79–97.

当代拉康学派的许多社会批判表现出悲观的基调，然而拉康自己提出了一条很少被拉康学派所讨论的出路，这就是他所说的“圣人”姿态。对于拉康来说，“圣人”似乎与古老的不依附的精神观念有关：“圣人拒绝享乐。”我们可以将这句话与斯拉沃热·齐泽克（Slavoj Žižek）的观察相对比，即：“驱力的教训是，我们注定要享乐：无论我们做什么，享乐都会坚持下去；我们永远也摆脱不了它；即使我们以最彻底的努力去放弃它，它也会污染我们摆脱它的努力。”彼得·德弗里斯（Pieter de Vries）、塞伦·奥泽尔丘克（Ceren Özseluk）和叶海亚·马德拉（Yahya Madra）等人可以被视为拉康学派中的例外，因为他们认为享乐或欲望在后资本主义政治中具有潜在的建设性。

Not every scholar understands the death drive in a Lacanian way; some non-Lacanian scholars have also emphasized the close relationship between capitalism and destruction. Benjamin Fong offers a complex non-Lacanian study of the capitalist death drive. [17]17 Benjamin Fong, *Death and Mastery: Psychoanalytic Drive Theory and the Subject of Late Capitalism* (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016). He argues that the death drive should be distinguished into three interrelated but distinct forces that operate in the infant’s psyche. First, the death drive as the Nirvana principle can be understood as a longing for the structure of care in early life, when the boundaries of the brain, body, and others are fluid. Second, aggressiveness and power are different from this, as they are originally a violent reaction to the death drive itself and to the omnipotence of the caregiver. Finally, what Freud often calls the “instinct for mastery” should not be confused with the “will to power,” which is often combined with the death drive. In fact, this is relevant to our current discussion: the instinct for mastery also represents a counter-impulse to the death drive, aimed at protecting oneself from the loss of self and from the caregiver. Fong explains that its effects may remain socially visible in the desire to possess and develop technology. However, this positive, self-protective side of technology can also produce harmful effects, especially when combined with the will to power, as we will discuss next.

并不是每一位学者都用拉康式的方式来理解死亡驱力，一些非拉康学派的学者也强调了资本主义与毁灭的密切关系。本杰明·方（Benjamin Fong）对资本主义的死亡驱力进行了复杂的非拉康式研究。他认为，死亡驱力应该被区分为三种相互关联、但又截然不同的力量，这些力量在婴儿的精神中起作用。首先，涅槃原则的死亡驱力可以被理解为对早期生活中照料结构的渴望，此时，大脑、身体以及与他人的边界都是流动的。其次，攻击性和权力与此不同，因为它们最初是对死亡驱力本身和看护人的无所不能的暴力反应。最后，不应该将弗洛伊德经常提到的“控制欲”与“权力欲”相混淆，后者通常与死亡驱力相结合。事实上，这与我们目前的讨论有关，控制欲也代表了对死亡驱力的一种反冲（counter-impulse），旨在保护自己免受自我丧失和看护人的伤害。方解释说，在渴望拥有和发展技术的过程中，它的影响可能在社会上仍然可见。然而，技术的这种积极的、自我保护的一面也可能产生有害的影响，特别是当其与权力欲结合在一起时，正如我们接下来将要讨论的那样。

(III) Ahriman: Capitalism’s Hedonistic Will to Power [18]18 Ahriman is the Zoroastrian spirit of destruction, chaos, and evil, used here as a metaphor for the destructive and hedonistic will to power in capitalism.

（三）阿里曼：资本主义的享乐主义权力欲

The third line of critique links the subjectivity of capitalist modernity to a hedonism that is particularly evident in the centrality of technology and money. Dany-Robert Dufour argues that the novelty of capitalist modernity lies in its profound reshaping of our psyche. [19]19 Dany-Robert Dufour, *The Art of Shrinking Heads: On the New Servitude of the Liberated in the Age of Total Capitalism*, trans. David Macey (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2008). He contends that capitalism has “desymbolized” the world, largely erasing transcendental values and minimizing the prohibitions of the superego, leaving the path wide open, so that subjectivity becomes largely free-floating and easily lost in the constant flow of commodities. From internet pornography to technology, the proliferation of addictions under the capitalist system is a serious consequence of this phenomenon.

第三条批判路线将资本主义现代性的主体性与一种享乐主义联系起来，这种享乐主义尤为明显地表现为技术和金钱的中心地位。丹尼-罗伯特·杜福尔（Dany-Robert Dufour）认为，资本主义现代性的新颖之处在于它深刻地重塑了我们的精神。他认为，资本主义已经将这个世界“去象征化”，在很大程度上抹去了先验价值，并将超我的禁令最小化，除此之外，一路畅通无阻，这使得主体性在很大程度上自由浮动，很容易在商品的不断流动中丧失。从网络色情到技术，资本主义制度下成瘾的激增正是这一现象导致的严重后果。

Under capitalism, prioritizing material hedonism requires money, and therefore socioeconomic power. Psychoanalysts have had much to say about money, greed, and the will to power. For example, Wolfgang Harsch explores the idea that the commodity-money relation is a primitive version of the mother-child exchange of breast milk and feces. [20]20 Wolfgang Harsch, “The Psychoanalysis of Money,” *Psychoanalytic Review* 55, no. 2 (1968): 277–292. Harsch argues that capitalism can sometimes be interpreted as a regression to this infantile economy: just as the child can obtain more than it has to “give,” so too can the successful investor in capitalist society. Money and property rights allow the rentier capitalist to live off the labor of others, like an infant living off its mother, where natural resources are seen as inexhaustible. Similarly, Nick Haslam points out that Freud’s old concept of the “anal character” has reappeared in the literature under different names, but its research potential has yet to be fully explored. [21]21 Nick Haslam, “The Return of the Anal Character,” *Review of General Psychology* 20, no. 3 (2016): 269–280.

在资本主义制度下，优先考虑物质享乐主义需要金钱，因此也需要社会经济权力。精神分析学家对金钱、贪婪和权力欲发表了很多看法。例如，沃尔夫冈·哈施（Wolfgang Harsch）探讨了商品—金钱关系是母亲与孩子之间母乳—粪便交换的原始版本的观点。哈施认为，有时候，资本主义可以被解释为对这种幼稚经济的倒退：就像孩子能够获得比他们必须“付出”的更多一样，资本主义社会中成功的投资者也是如此。金钱和财产权使食利者资本家可以依靠他人的劳动为生，就像依靠母亲生活的婴儿一样，在那里，自然资源被视为是取之不尽、用之不竭的。与此类似，尼克·哈斯拉姆（Nick Haslam）指出，弗洛伊德关于“肛门型性格”的陈旧概念已经以不同的名字重新出现在文学作品中，但其研究潜力还有待充分挖掘。

At the societal level, Bernard Lietaer proposed an original Jungian view of money and power. He argued that different economic systems—especially different monetary systems—can be associated with specific dominant archetypes. Centralized systems involving precious-metal coinage, interest-bearing loans, and money as a store of value are linked to the warrior and sovereign archetypes common in patriarchal societies, while decentralized mutual credit systems without interest or storage are linked to the relationship and nurturing archetypes common in societies with higher female status. In Lietaer’s view, both monetary systems have their respective advantages, and in the few historical cases he could document where both systems coexisted, they produced surprisingly positive socioeconomic outcomes, including for women.

在社会层面，伯纳德·列塔尔（Bernard Lietaer）提出了一种原始的荣格式的金钱和权力观。他认为，不同的经济制度——尤其是不同的货币体系——可以与特定的主导原型相关联。涉及贵金属铸币、计息贷款以及作为价值储存手段的货币的中央集权制度与父权制社会中常见的武士和主权原型有关，而没有利息和存储的分散的相互信用制度则与女性地位较高的社会中常见的关系和养育原型有关。在列塔尔看来，这两种货币体系都有其各自的优势，而且在他能记录到的少数两种货币体系共存的历史案例中，都产生了令人惊讶的积极的社会经济结果，包括对女性的影响。

Does this mean that a return to the “feminine principle” could be a way out of the capitalist materialist-power complex? Some psychoanalysts are open to this idea from different angles. For example, Jean-Joseph Goux argues that the “feminine” departs from three key, structurally similar oppressors of Western modernity: patriarchy, logocentrism, and capitalism. For Jungians, they sometimes advocate a return of the “feminine image” in an economic system currently dominated by the “masculine image” archetype. However, for Juliet Mitchell, femininity is an ideological construct rooted in the Oedipus complex. She argues that the latter provides a blueprint for understanding how women and men unconsciously form themselves in unequal ways within a patriarchal context. Yet Mitchell’s approach is not necessarily incompatible with Jungian approaches, as they may focus on different contents of the unconscious: while Mitchell focuses on the superego, Jungians are interested in deeper “pathways,” even if these pathways are expressed in socially constructed ways.

这是否意味着“女性化原则”的回归可能是摆脱资本主义物质主义—权力情结的一种方式？一些精神分析学家从不同的角度对这一观点持开放性态度。例如，让-约瑟夫·古（Jean-Joseph Goux）认为，“女性化”背离了西方现代性的三种关键的、结构相似的压迫者：父权制、逻各斯中心主义和资本主义。对于荣格学派来说，他们有时候主张在目前由“男性意象”原型主导的经济制度中回归“女性意象”。然而，对于朱丽叶·米切尔（Juliet Mitchell）来说，女性气质是一种根植于俄狄浦斯情结的意识形态建构。她认为，后者为理解女性和男性在父权制背景下如何无意识地以不平等的方式形成自我提供了蓝图。然而，米切尔的方法与荣格的方法并非一定是不相容的，因为他们可能会关注到无意识的不同内容：当米切尔关注超我时，荣格学派则对更深层的“路径”感兴趣，尽管这些“路径”是以社会建构的方式表达的。

(4) Lucifer: The Rationalizing Arrogance of Capitalism

（四）路西法：资本主义的理性化傲慢

The Luciferian dimension represents a force opposite to Ahriman (even if sometimes complementary): it insists that rational intellect is omnipotent, superior to matter, and capable of transcending any limit, including death, a fact that is easily denied.

路西法的维度代表了与阿里曼相反的一种力量（即使有时是互补的）：它坚持认为理性的智力是无所不能的、高于物质，并有能力超越任何限制，包括死亡，这一点很容易被否认。

The way capitalism conceptualizes itself is most evident in the discipline of economics. Walter Weisskopf provided the first, and perhaps still the only, systematic psychoanalytic study of neoclassical economics. He argued that neoclassical economics is a clear example of “rationalization” in the Freudian sense: it serves as a defense mechanism against the ego’s fear of a world full of irrationality, uncertainty, and imbalance. Concepts such as “equilibrium,” the “invisible hand,” or “perfect information” produce a reassuring picture of economic reality. While neoclassical economics acts as a tranquilizer for inner conflicts, its confidence and ambition are also limitless, as it claims universality and seeks to reorganize the world in its own image.

资本主义将自身概念化的方式在经济学学科中表现得最为明显。沃尔特·维斯科普夫（Walter Weisskopf）提供了第一个、或许也是迄今为止唯一一个关于新古典主义经济学的系统精神分析研究。他认为，新古典主义经济学是弗洛伊德意义上“合理性”的一个明显例子：它作为一种防御机制，抵御自我对充满非理性、不确定性和不平衡的世界的恐惧。“均衡”“看不见的手”或“完美信息”等概念产生了一幅令人安心的经济现实图景。虽然新古典主义经济学对内在冲突起到了一种安定剂的作用，但同时它的自信和野心也是无限的，因为它宣称自己具有普遍性，并试图按照自己的形象重组世界。

Fromm’s character analysis skillfully continues this theme. For him, the “anal character” of Freud’s era was gradually being replaced by a new ultimate variant of the capitalist character, the (Luciferian) “monocerebral man,” who “is oriented almost exclusively by the brain, wanting to know what things are, how they function, how they are constructed or manipulated.” For this character, “emotions have withered rather than been repressed; they are alive, uncultivated, and relatively crude; they appear in the form of passions (such as the passion to win or to prove oneself superior to others).” The monocerebral character tends to exhibit narcissistic traits, which are often a compensation for unconscious feelings of powerlessness. Fromm believed that the monocerebral tendency applies to most people in modern economic society, and its main defect lies in excessive confidence in the intellect and a disconnection from the feeling function—the “heart.”

弗洛姆的性格分析巧妙地延续了这一主题。对于他来说，弗洛伊德时代的“肛门型性格”正在逐渐被资本主义性格的一个新的终极变种所取代，即（路西法式的）“单脑人”（monocerebral man），后者“几乎完全以大脑为导向，想知道事物是什么，它们是如何运作、如何被构造或操纵的”。对于这个角色来说，“情感已经枯萎，而不是被压抑；它们还活着，没有被培养，而且相对粗糙；它们以激情（比如想要获胜或证明自己优于他人的激情）的形式出现”。单脑性格倾向于表现出自恋的特征，这通常是对无意识的无力感的弥补。弗洛姆认为，单脑倾向适用于现代经济社会中的大部分人，它的主要缺陷体现在对智力的过度自信，以及与感觉功能——“心灵”的脱节。

Theodor Abt used Jungian theory to analyze the transition of the 20th-century Swiss Alps to capitalist modernity. He argued that with industrialization and the introduction of schools, media, and state law, a new ego-oriented way of life emerged. “We believe that with our cleverness we can control the growing (existential and ecological) imbalances (of capitalist modernity), but we will still fail to understand the spirit of natural moderation,” a spirit found in the unconscious and expressed in myths, rituals, and living symbols of the self.

西奥多·阿布特（Theodor Abt）运用荣格的理论分析了20世纪瑞士阿尔卑斯山向资本主义现代性的过渡。他认为，随着工业化，以及学校、媒体和州法律的引入，一种新的以自我为导向的生活方式出现了。“我们相信，凭借自己的聪明才智，我们能够控制（资本主义现代性）日益增长的（存在和生态）失衡，但我们也将仍然无法理解自然的节制精神”，这种精神在无意识中被发现，并在神话、仪式和自我的活生生的象征中得到表达。

That capitalism is full of unconscious dynamics is obvious to any researcher with a psychoanalytic bent. Maureen Sioh studied an East Asian company and showed that when managers face anxiety triggered by unequal global financial systems, their responses tend to: (1) deny the unfairness of the rules; (2) split subjectivity into “good” and “evil,” equating “good” with wealthy countries; (3) identify with the idealized aggressor (predatory capitalism) to protect themselves from feelings of helplessness; and (4) project failure onto poorer citizens, neighboring countries, or ethnic minorities. She claims that all these defenses allow these managers to temporarily restrain their fears. Similar observations can be made at the macro level. As Ilan Kapoor argues, economic development is full of denied memories (e.g., colonialism), traumatic prohibitions (e.g., economic recession), fantasies (e.g., structural adjustment), obsessions (e.g., economic growth), and stereotypes (e.g., the infantilization of “underdeveloped” regions). We are now far from the rationalist dreams of neoclassical economists. Instead, as Sedláček argues from a Jungian perspective, economics is a product of Western civilization and therefore closely tied to its cultural unconscious.

资本主义充满了无意识的动力，这一点对任何具有精神分析头脑的研究者来说都是显而易见的。莫琳·萧（Maureen Sioh）研究了一家东亚公司，研究表明，当管理者面对由不平等的全球金融体系所引发的焦虑时，他们的表现倾向于：（1）否认规则的不公平性；（2）将主体性分为“善”与“恶”，将“善”与富裕国家等同；（3）认同理想化的侵略者（掠夺性资本主义），以保护自己免受无助感的伤害；（4）将失败投射到更贫穷的公民、邻国或少数民族身上。她声称，所有这些防御措施使这些管理者能够暂时克制住自己的恐惧。在宏观层面上也可以进行类似的观察。正如伊兰·卡普尔（Ilan Kapoor）所说的那样，经济发展充满了被否认的记忆（例如殖民主义）、创伤性禁令（例如经济衰退）、幻想（例如结构调整）、痴迷（例如经济增长），以及刻板印象（例如对“欠发达”地区的幼稚化）。我们现在与新古典主义经济学家的理性主义梦想相去甚远。相反，正如赛德拉切克用荣格主义的视角所论证的那样，经济学是西方文明的产物，因此它与其文化潜意识密切相关。

Contrary to the Luciferian tendencies of the monocerebral subject, all these studies call for more humility and the precautionary principle, more ecology and bodily grounding, and above all, more “inwardness” in order to come to terms with unconscious attachments, including perhaps our own disturbing unconscious attachments to neoliberalism, sexism, or racism. This also applies to radical scholars, who should not too quickly believe that it is sufficient to rationally critique capitalism without examining the deeper irrational forces within it.

与单脑主体的路西法倾向相反，所有这些研究都呼吁更多的谦卑和预防原则、更多的生态学和身体基础，最重要的是，更多的“内在”，以便与无意识的依恋达成妥协，可能也包括我们自己对新自由主义、性别歧视或种族主义的令人不安的无意识依恋。这也适用于激进的学者，他们不应该过快地相信不需要去考察资本主义内部更深层次的非理性力量，而只要理性地对其展开批判就足够了。

4. Conclusion

四、结 语

This article contributes to the psychoanalytic critique of capitalism. It first identifies the main historical approaches to this critique, then presents some representative concepts along four complementary directions: libidinal repression (Eros), compulsive repetition (Thanatos), hedonistic will to power (Ahriman), and narcissism and rationalizing arrogance (Lucifer). Each type may apply to different social classes and groups within capitalist society, but they all have their preferred targets: the first fits the situation of the working class; the second fits consumers of any class; the third fits the wealthy class; and the fourth fits the managerial class and the economists who represent its interests. Although these four themes are sometimes complementary, they also have significant points of tension.

本文对资本主义的精神分析批判作出了贡献。它首先确定了这种批判的主要历史方法，然后沿着四个互补的方向展现了一些代表性的概念：力比多压抑（厄洛斯）、强迫性重复（桑纳托斯）、享乐主义权力欲（阿里曼）、自恋与理性化的傲慢（路西法）。每一个类型都可能适用于资本主义社会中的不同社会阶层和群体，但它们都有自己的首选目标：第一个适合工人阶级的情况；第二个适合任何阶层的消费者；第三个适合富裕阶层；第四个适合管理阶层以及代表这一阶层利益的经济学家。虽然这四个主题有时是互补的，但它们也有一些重大的张力点。

There is disagreement over the content of the superego in contemporary capitalism: does the latter repress creative libidinal energy, or does it compel us to “enjoy” at all costs? There is disagreement over the question of capitalist subjectivity: is it infected by “shrinking head” (apathy) or “single brain” (arrogance)? There is disagreement over the concept of alienation: is alienation a part of the human condition, or do specific social conditions corrode our deepest “core”? There is also disagreement over post-capitalist practice: is desire to be released or cultivated, or is it to be reduced or controlled? Finally, what is to be gained politically from “feminization”?

关于当代资本主义超我的内容存在分歧：后者是压抑创造性的力比多能量，还是迫使我们不惜一切代价“享受”？在资本主义主体性问题上存在分歧：它是被“缩头”（冷漠）还是被“单脑”（傲慢）所感染？关于异化的概念存在分歧：异化是人类状况的一部分，还是特定的社会状况腐蚀了我们最深处的“核心”？在后资本主义实践上也存在分歧：欲望是被释放或培养的，还是被减少或控制的？最后，在政治上要从“女性化”中得到什么？

Despite the above disagreements, this article attempts to show that there are no insurmountable differences between different schools of psychoanalytic thought in the study of capitalism. Therefore, this article also calls for more dialogue and cooperation between methods and traditions.

尽管存在上述分歧，但本文试图表明，在资本主义研究中，不同的精神分析思想流派之间并没有不可逾越的差异。因此，本文也呼吁在方法与传统之间进行更多的对话与合作。

Among the most influential psychoanalysts, the theories of scholars such as Alfred Adler, Erik Erikson, Otto Rank, Klein, or Donald Winnicott remain underutilized in the critique of capitalism. With the integration of this field, this situation is expected to change. Furthermore, the usefulness of Jung’s views for the radical left may still surprise some. Reich’s subversive research on subtle energy may resonate with ancient East Asian and South Asian traditions, but may still be ahead of its time in the West. To dismiss Reich hastily as a laggard of the radical left would be a serious mistake.

在最有影响力的精神分析学家中，阿尔弗雷德·阿德勒（Alfred Adler）、埃里克·埃里克森（Erik Erikson）、奥托·兰克（Otto Rank）、克莱茵或唐纳德·温尼科特（Donald Winnicott）等学者的理论在资本主义批判中仍未得到充分利用。随着该领域的整合，这种情况有望改变。此外，荣格的观点对激进左翼的帮助仍然会让一些人感到惊讶。赖希关于微妙能量的颠覆性研究可能与古老的东亚和南亚传统相呼应，但在西方可能仍然领先于其时代。草率地将赖希视为激进左翼的落伍分子将是一个严重的错误。

In any case, capitalism has never been a monolithic whole, nor is there a “capitalist subject.” Nuanced distinctions and attention to class, gender, race, and cultural diversity will surely be central to a comprehensive psychoanalytic critique of capitalism. How to adapt or transform the psychoanalytic critique of capitalism in non-Western settings remains a challenge. We can learn much from the pioneering work of Frantz Fanon or Ashis Nandy, or from recent works in Latin America.

无论如何，资本主义从来就不是一个整体，也不是“资本主义主体”。细致入微的区分以及对阶级、性别、种族和文化多样性的关注必将成为对资本主义进行综合精神分析的核心。如何在非西方环境中适应或转变对资本主义的精神分析批判仍然是一个挑战。我们可以从弗朗兹·法农（Frantz Fanon）或阿希斯·南迪（Ashis Nandy）的开创性研究中，或者从拉丁美洲最近的作品中学到很多东西。

Finally, this article argues that psychoanalysis can provide nourishment for post-capitalist politics. We see that the psychoanalytic study of alienation, ideology, and possessive individualism cannot be confined to curing the capitalist subject. The rehabilitation of the individual can only succeed hand in hand with the transformation of broader political, economic, and ecological relations. However, to achieve these transformative goals, activism must have a clearer understanding of the internal dynamics of anti-capitalist subjects and movements; success based solely on external goals will be limited, and the historical mistakes made by the anti-capitalist left are likely to repeat themselves again and again.

最后，本文认为，精神分析可以为后资本主义政治提供养分。我们看到，对异化、意识形态、占有性个人主义的精神分析研究不能局限于治愈资本主义主体。个体的康复只有与更广泛的政治、经济和生态关系的转变携手并进才能成功。然而，为了实现这些变革性的目标，行动主义必须对反资本主义的主体和运动的内在动力有更清晰的理解，单单外部目标的成功将是有限的，反资本主义的左翼犯下的历史性错误很可能会一次又一次地重演。

(Author: Julien-François Gerber: International Institute of Social Studies, The Hague, Netherlands; Translator: Guo Cheng, School of Marxism, Nankai University)

（作者：朱利安-弗朗索瓦·格伯（Julien-François Gerber）：荷兰海牙国际社会研究所；译者：郭成，南开大学马克思主义学院）

Online Editor Tongxin:

网络编辑同心：