ABSTRACT In this article, I examine Catherine Malabou’s concept of trauma, and argue that her replacement of the Freudian unconscious with the cerebral unconscious might fit adequately into a different framework from the one she proposes. Comparing her view of pathology to that of Georges Canguilhem, I propose a dimensional reading of pathology. Building on this – and by reference to metaplasticity – I ask whether one can explain the mechanisation characteristic of the new wounded mechanistically. I then look at her exchange with Slavoj Žižek to get at Malabou’s understanding of psychoanalysis. She seeks to realign Freud and neuroscience to resolve issues with both. As part of this shift, she introduces the term ‘the Material’ – linked to the cerebral unconscious – as an alternative to the Lacanian triad of Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary. She does, however, leave it underdeveloped, and I argue that this points to tensions in her theory. While her concept of plasticity runs against ideas of an isolated transcendental subject exempt from the outside, Malabou seems to literalise (or ‘corporealise’) trauma. If this is correct, then how radical is her concept of trauma, and are there ways of describing trauma that are equally compatible with her concept of plasticity?

中文翻译：

---

干扰和破坏：创伤的病因

摘要 在这篇文章中，我研究了凯瑟琳马拉布的创伤概念，并认为她用大脑无意识代替弗洛伊德无意识可能完全适合与她提出的框架不同的框架。将她的病理学观点与 Georges Canguilhem 的观点进行比较，我建议对病理学进行维度解读。在此基础上 - 并参考化生性 - 我问是否可以从机械上解释新伤员的机械化特征。然后，我查看了她与 Slavoj Žižek 的交流，以了解马拉布对精神分析的理解。她试图重新调整弗洛伊德和神经科学以解决两者的问题。作为这种转变的一部分，她引入了“物质”一词——与大脑无意识相关——作为拉康式的真实、象征和想象三元组的替代品。她确实，然而，让它不发达，我认为这表明她的理论存在张力。虽然她的可塑性概念违背了一个孤立的超验主体的观点，但她似乎将创伤字面化（或“实体化”）。如果这是正确的，那么她的创伤概念有多激进，是否有方法描述与她的可塑性概念同样兼容的创伤？