在1999 年發行的《神經質主體》（The Ticklish Subject）中，紀傑克指 出巴迪烏對精神分析的批判忽略了死亡驅力的激進性。然而，在幾年前 一場與巴迪烏的辯論，紀傑克被與會人士問及現今是否仍抱持與當初 相同的批判，他一反常態地回應：「我當時略帶疑問地說服我自已精神 分析的過程即具政治性，甚至認為所有政治活動與分析過程能相互對 應⋯⋯我現在已放棄此觀點。我已不認為精神分析的結論⋯⋯能作為政 治實踐的一種真正的形式」（Philosophy 102-03）。紀傑克的告解不僅促使 我們重審精神分析與政治之間的關係，其自我批判似乎也暗示著巴迪烏 在《主體理論》（Theory of the Subject）中對精神分析的批判具相當程度的正 當性。本文以此為起點，探討紀傑克早期對巴迪烏批判的洞見與不見， 並透過兩者對主體看法的歧異，解釋精神分析與政治的關係中形構性 （constitutive）與對應性（correlative）的差別所產生出不同的政治與倫理意 涵。本文結論指出，精神分析對政治主體的建／解構仍具相當的啟發， 但若要尋求更進一步的發展，精神分析必須超越對否定性（negativity）的 執念，發展一種能在本體論層次接受匱乏的立論，也能在現象層次發展 主體過程，闡述、展演並組織匱乏所帶來的效應。

In The Ticklish Subject, published in 1999, Žižek took issue with Badiou’s criticism of psychoanalysis as providing an insufficient mode of inquiry into political practice. Years later, when confronted with a question whether he still subscribed to his earlier appraisal of Badiou’s work, Žižek reversed his position: “I told myself with doubts that this [analytic] process is political, even that any political activity correlates with it. I’ve now abandoned that. I don’t believe any more that the conclusion of psychoanalysis is...the authentic form of political engagement” (Philosophy 102-03). The present study examines the debate between Žižek and Badiou, and identifies how the relationship between psychoanalysis and politics is configured in their writings—whereas Badiou conceives of their relationship as constitutive but not equivalent, Žižek, at least in his early writings, tends to overemphasize this constitutive relationship and suggests a relation of correlation. In the conclusion, I argue that in order for psychoanalysis to remain a valid partner in the conversation about politics, attention needs to be paid as much to the moment of rupture as to the question of consistency that involves not just a parallax view into the ontological incompleteness of the Other but also a sustained investigation into the post-evental consequences, especially questions concerning organization and duration.