拉岡講座221

拉岡講座201

An article in The International Journal
國際雜誌的一篇文章

4
There is a crisis in analysis and, to show that there is nothing biased in this, I would support my view by citing a recent article that demonstrates this in the most striking way—and it is the work of no mediocre mind. It is a closely argued, very engaging article by Thomas S. Szasz—who hails from Syracuse, which fact, unfortunately, does not make him any more closely related to Archimedes, for this Syracuse is in New York State—which appeared in the latest number of The International
Journal of Psychoanalysis

精神分析界有一個危機。為了表示我不是危言聳聽,我引述一篇文章支持我的觀點。這篇文章一針見血地揭露時弊,足見其睿智不凡。這是一篇頗具爭議性的引人注意的文章,發表在「國際精神分析學雜誌」,作者是湯姆士、薩茲。他從錫拉丘茲發聲,不幸地,這個事實未能讓他沾上跟阿基米德有什麼關係的光,因為這是位於的美國錫拉丘茲。

The author was inspired to write this article by an idea in keeping with the line of investigation that inspired his earlier articles, a truly moving search for the authenticity of the analytic way. It is quite striking that an author, who is indeed one of the most highly regarded in his circle, which is specifically that of American psychoanalysis , should regard transference as nothing more than a defence on the part of the psycho-analyst, and should arrive at the following conclusion—the transference is the pivot on which the entire structure of psycho-analytic treatment rests.

作者寫這篇文章的動機,是他早先曾發表文章,苦心孤詣地探索精神分析學的真誠問題。他現在想要繼續觀察是否有新的發展。耐人尋味地,這位作者在其學界,明確地說,在美國精神分析學的學界頗受人敬仰。但是他卻將移情視為僅僅是精神分析師單方面的一種防衛,並且竟然得到以下的結論:移情是精神分析治療整個架構所依賴的軸心。

This is a concept that he calls inspired—I am always suspicious of faux arnie in English vocabulary, so I have tried to tread warily when translating it. This inspired, it seemed to me, did not mean inspire, but something like offiicieux. It is an inspired and indispensable concept—I quote—yet it harbors the seeds, not only of its own destruction, but of the destruction of psycho-analysis itself. Why? Because it tends to place the person of the analyst beyond the reality testing of patients, colleagues, and self . This hazard must be frankly recognized. Neither professionalization, nor the ‘raising of standards’, nor coerced training analyses can protect us from this danger. And here the confusion arises—only the integrity of the analyst and of the analytic situation can safeguard from extinction the unique dialogue between analysand and analyst.

這是一個觀念,他稱之為「啟發」。法文是faux arnie,英文辭彙我不太把握,所以翻譯時我掙扎了很久。我覺得「啟發」並不完全是望文生義地啟發,而是有點類似法文的 offiicieux啟悟。這是一個受到啟發的不可欠缺的觀念,容我引述一下:「可是它不但蘊含會毀滅自己,而且會毀滅精神分析界的種子。為什麼?因為它傾向於將精神分析師這個位置放置於病人、同事、跟自己的考驗場域之外。這個危險,我們必須坦白承認,因為再多的專業,再怎樣的提高水準,再怎樣的強制分析訓練,都無法保護我們避開這個危險。」但是矛盾的地方就在此:「只有精神分析師跟精神分析情境的尊嚴,才能捍衛病人跟精神分析師之間的對話,免於消滅。」

This blind alley that Szasz has created for himself is, for him, necessitated by the very fact that he can conceive of the analysis of the transference only in terms of an assent obtained from the healthy part of the ego, that part which is capable of judging reality and of separating it from illusion.

薩茲自己創建出來的這道死巷,存在的必要是由於以下這個事實:他只有從自我的健全得到同意,他才能夠構想移情的分析,而且自我的健全要有能力判斷現實以及分開現實跟幻覺。

His article begins thus, quite logically— Transference is similar to such concepts as delusion, illusion, and phantasy. Once the presence of the transference has been established, it is a question of agreement between the analysand and the analyst, except that here the analyst is a judge against whom there is neither appeal nor recourse, we are led to call any analysis of the transference a field of pure, uncontrolled hazard.

他的推論因此順理成章開展:「移情類同於幻覺、幻想、及幻見。」移情的存在一但被建立,那就是病人跟精神分析師之間兩相同意的問題。唯一不同的是,精神分析師本身是法官,無法對他提出抗告或訴訟。我們不得不認為任何這種移情的分析,是一個危機四伏的場域。

I have taken this article only as an extreme case, but a very revealing one, so as to encourage us to restore here a determination that should bring into play another order—that of truth. Truth is based only on the fact that speech, even when it consists of lies, appeals to it and gives rise to it. This dimension
is always absent from the logical positivism that happens to dominate Szasz’s analysis of the concept of transference.

我引述這篇文章,只是當著是一個極端的例子,但是它頗引人深省,鼓勵我們重振旗鼓,探討另一個運作的層次,真理的層次。作為真理基礎的事實是:話語訴諸於真理,並產生真理,即使話語本身有時是由謊言組成。可是,薩茲談論移情的觀念的分析時,他表現的理性實證主義,總是欠缺這個自知之明。

My own conception of the dynamics of the unconscious has been called an intellectualization—on the grounds that I based the function of the signifier in the forefront. Is it not apparent that it is in this operational mode—in which everything makes light of the confrontation between a reality and a connotation of illusion attributed to the phenomenon of the transference— that this supposed intellectualization really resides?

我自己對於無意識作為生命力的觀念,一直被稱為科學的知性研究,因為我將意符的功用擺置在前鋒。這難道不是顯而易見?我們所被認為的知性研究,基礎不就在於無意識與意符之間的這個運作的模式,也就是,移情現象產生的幻想,意味著,它完全不把跟現實之間的衝突,當著一回事?

Far from us having to consider two subjects, in a dual position, to discuss an objectivity that appears to have been posited there as the gravitational effect of a compression in behaviour, we must bring out the domain of possible deception.

這個幻想跟現實分離的現象,我們絲毫不需要考慮到是兩個主體處於雙重立場。似乎有人已經提出:在存在的客觀環境,人的行為會受到類似地心引力的壓縮的影響。為了討論這個客觀環境,我們必須顯示,這裡有可能是欺騙的領域,

When I introduced you to the subject of Cartesian certainty as the necessary starting-point of all our speculations as to what the unconscious reveals, I pointed out the role of essential balancer played in Descartes by the Other which, it is said, must on no account be deceptive. In analysis, the danger is that this Other will be deceived. This is not the only dimension to be apprehended in the transference. But one has to admit that if there is one domain in which, in discourse, deception has some chance of success, it is certainly love that provides its model.

我跟你們介紹過,笛卡爾的「我思故我在」的這個主體是確定性,是我們研究無意識顯露出什麼的一個必須的出發點。我曾指出,笛卡爾用來扮演重要的平衡角色的這個大它者,有人說,必然是欺騙性的。在精神分析學,危險所在是,大它者將會被欺騙。談到移情時,我們所要理解的還不僅僅是這個角度。我們還需要承認,在真理表述時,假如還有讓欺騙有得逞的機會,確實只有愛情表述時,庶幾可以類比。

What better way of assuring oneself, on the point on which one is mistaken, than to persuade the other of the truth of what one says! Is not this a fundamental structure of the dimension of love that the transference gives us the opportunity of depicting?

在我們受人誤解的時刻,除了說服對方,我們所說的內容是千真萬確外,還有什麼更好的方法來確信我們自己的心?移情之所以讓我們有表述的機會,難道不就是愛情表述這個基本的結構?

In persuading the other that he has that which may complement us, we assure ourselves of being able to continue to misunderstand precisely what we lack. The circle of deception, in so far as it highlights the dimension of love at the point named—this will serve us as an exemplary door to demonstrate the trick next time.

在說服對方,他擁有跟我們互補的東西,我們讓自己確信,我們能夠繼續誤解我們自己確實所欠缺的。這是欺騙的循環,因為它強調愛之所以為愛的角度。這是個典範的例子,下一次我們要証明移情的詭計時還會用到。

But this is not all I have to show you, for it is not what radically causes the closure involved in the transference. What causes it, and this will be the other side of our examination of the concepts of the transference, is—to come back to the question mark inscribed in the left part, the shaded, reserved
part—what I have designated by the objet a.

不過,這還不是我要告訴你們的全部,因為移情牽涉到的封閉,主要的原因還不是在此。引起封閉的原因,位於移情的觀念受到審查的另一邊,讓我們回到左邊的這個問號,這個陰影的保留區,也就是我曾經指明小客體的東西。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: