趨近／挪用／解構／背叛亞陶？：論德希達的「殘酷物語」

Approaching/Appropriating/Deconstructing/Betraying Artaud?: A Critique of Derrida’s “Story of Cruelty”

亞陶的作品具多層次的震撼力，往往能爆發出深不可測的巧思，並從四面八方釋放出殘酷的力量。不同的理論家從中篩選各自所要的部分，並試圖創發新的層面以滿足所需，德希達也不例外。在其生涯中，德希達曾多次評論亞陶的論述與創作，及亞陶謎樣的人生。對許多批評家而言，德希達的兩篇討論亞陶「殘酷劇場」的早期論文──〈被劫持的言語〉（1965）和〈殘酷劇場與再現的封閉〉（1966）──不但是「亞陶評論的經典範例」（Scheer 2004: 8），並對往後的亞陶研究造成深遠的影響。在其1986 年的著作〈讓subjectile 喪失理智〉中，德希達以亞陶所使用卻無法翻譯的字── subjectile ──大作文章，除試圖去說明該字的狂亂意涵，也用該字來詮釋亞陶的思想與藝術創作。這三個著作構成本論文所欲討論的德希達「殘酷物語」。德希達到底是如何趨近、挪用、解構與背叛亞陶的想法？他如何憑藉其無堅不摧的解構方法學去有系統地重塑亞陶？本論文擬進一步細讀並分析德希達解讀亞陶的觀點與讀法，試圖評估並批判德希達的「殘酷物語」，並將「殘酷物語」置於德希達遺產的「文本織物」（textiles）脈絡中。換句話說，本論文梳理德希達對亞陶解讀方法的演變，過程中除了突顯德希達在論述中如何形塑亞陶，也展現德希達如何藉著趨近和挪用亞陶的論述與創作來完成自我的表述，發展自己的解構方法學與理論。

Antonin Artaud’s writings are layers deep in strain. They madden inlayers of unfathomable genius and issue forces of cruelty from all directions.Different theorists tease out different layers from Artaud and try to create newlayers to serve their purposes, and so does Jacques Derrida. Over his writingcareer, Derrida has written multiple commentaries on the work of Artaudand has mentioned the name of Artaud from time to time in his work. Formany critics, Derrida’s two early essays on “the theater of cruelty”—“La ParoleSoufflee” (1965) and “The Theater of Cruelty and the Closure of Representation”(1966)—have not only become “the paradigmatic case of Artaud commentary”(Scheer 2004: 8) but also exerted a profound impact on subsequent scholarshipon Artaud. In his later work, To Unsense the Subjectile (1986), Derrida takesissue with the untranslatable word “subjectile” used by Artaud and attempts toillustrate demented implications of the word and thus Artaud’s thoughts andartistic practices. These three pieces of writing constitute what I call Derrida’s“story of cruelty.” How does Derrida approach, appropriate, deconstruct, andbetray Artaud’s thoughts? How does he employ his invincible deconstructivemethodology to refashion Artaud in a systematic fashion? The purpose of thispaper is to analyze Derrida’s interpretive viewpoint and strategy in transvaluatingArtaud’s enterprise. It aims to critique of Derrida’s reading of Artaud and situateshis “story of cruelty” in the textual fabric of the Derridean heritage.