Lubin Avi
Buchman Faculty of Law, Tel-Aviv University, Israel.
Am J Psychoanal. 2005 Dec;65(4):367-79. doi: 10.1007/s11231-005-7888-3.
The need to establish a borderline between legitimate and illegitimate political trial is one of the central societal discourses. In this paper the author claims that the issues are complex and that a political trial can remain legitimate as long as it is not dealing with a confrontation with the symbolic order on which the society (and the court itself) is founded and as long as the subject (or action) it is dealing with does not threaten the symbolic order's (or the "Big Other") existence. When the symbolic order's existence is in danger, the court is bound to participate in an act of "sacrifice" that is intended to protect the "order." The author uses Jacques Lacan's psychoanalytic theory of the "Big Other" (and its development to ideological-political terms) in examining three categories of sacrifice. Through these categories the author claims that in extreme cases of confrontation with the existence of the symbolic order, the court cannot remain objective and it would be difficult to justify the trial as legitimate (especially in historical perspective).
在合法与非法政治审判之间划定界限的必要性是社会核心议题之一。在本文中，作者声称这些问题很复杂，只要政治审判不涉及与社会（以及法院自身）所基于的象征秩序发生冲突，并且只要其所处理的主体（或行为）不威胁象征秩序（或“大他者”）的存在，那么政治审判就可以保持合法性。当象征秩序的存在受到威胁时，法院必然会参与旨在保护“秩序”的“牺牲”行为。作者运用雅克·拉康关于“大他者”的精神分析理论（及其在思想政治层面的发展）来审视三类牺牲行为。通过这些类别，作者声称，在与象征秩序的存在发生极端冲突的情况下，法院无法保持客观，并且很难将审判证明为合法（尤其是从历史角度来看）。
