內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓 06

Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health. (1982)
Int. J. Psycho-Anal., 63:395-407 (IJP)
Introspection, Empathy, and the Semi-Circle of Mental Health
Heinz Kohut

內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓 06
海因茲、科胡特

195
SUMMARY
綱要

All the foregoing conclusions were stated (or, at least, clearly implied) in my 1959 essay. And I also showed then what the specific deleterious consequences are that forced me to underline the fact that ‘the drive’ does not belong in a system of psychology. Specifically, I showed the distortions of our psychological perceptions in the area of ‘independence’, ‘dependence’, ‘free will’, and in the area of the set of phenomena we have now come to call selfobject transferences.

所有前述的結論在我1959年的論文被陳述(或,至少清楚地被暗示)。我當時也顯示,是怎樣的明確的神奇的結果,迫使我去強調這個事實:「欲望驅力」並不適用於一個心理學的系統。明確地說,我揭露我們心理感覺受到的扭曲,在「獨立」,「依賴」,「自由意志」的領域,及我們現在漸漸稱為自體客體移情的這組現象的領域。

And what have I said since then in support of my viewpoint, and what remains to be said today? A good deal, indeed, not only as concerns yesterday and today but, above all, as concerns the tomorrow in which the work begun by my colleagues and me must be continued by a younger generation of self-psychologically informed psychoanalysts.

自從那時,我所說的話,為了支持我的觀點,以及今天有待要說的是什麼?確實是很多,不但作為對昨天及今天的關心,而且,尤其是,作為對明天的關心。在明天,我的同事跟我開始的這項工作,必須有年輕一代具有自體心理學知識道精神分析師繼續下去。

Again, I am forced to assume that many of you are familiar with my work even though I know full well that while many may have quickly sampled my writings, there are only a few who have immersed themselves into them by devoting sufficient time and energy to the task to be able to say that they have actually read them. But since I can obviously not repeat here what I have now said in hundreds of pages during the last ten years or more, I will restrict myself to identifying more or less briefly certain important areas on which I cannot focus extensively today.

而且,我被迫要假定:你們許多人對於我的工作已經耳熟能詳,即使我心知肚明,雖然對於我的著作快速流覽的人很多,只有少數人全神貫注地研讀它們,傾注充分的時間跟精力于這項工作,為了能夠說出,他們確實曾經閱讀它們。但是因為我很明顯並沒有在此重複過去十多年來,我以好幾百頁的文字所說的話,我將限制我自己於相當簡短地辨認某些重要的地區,那是地區是我今天無法廣泛地個個關注。

As the first of these I will mention the interrelatedness of drive-psychology, on the one hand, and the hidden morality courageously-facing-the-truth morality and independence morality on the other hand, that characterizes traditional analysis. And, secondly, I will remind you of my previous efforts to raise into my colleagues’ awareness the view of man, of the essential nature of man, of normal man, as it were, that traditional analysis has espoused: namely, man as an insufficiently and incompletely tamed animal, reluctant to give up his wish to live by the pleasure principle, unable to relinquish his innate destructiveness.

首先,我將提到,一方面是欲望驅力心理學,另一方面是隱藏的道德,勇敢面對真理的道德,獨立的道德,它們之間的互動關係,表現傳統精神分析學的特色。最近,我將提醒你們,有關我先前的努力,為了要提升人的觀點,讓我的同事知道,人的基本特性,也就是正常人的基本特性。這是傳統精神分析學所信奉的。換句話說,人作為一種並不充分,也不完全被馴服的動物,他只是勉強放棄他自己的願望,為了要憑藉快樂原則來生活,因此他無法放棄他天生的毀滅性。

Since the second of these two basic characteristics of psychoanalysis will form the starting point of the second major topic of today’s presentation, I will, in preparation for the step into new territory that I promised you for today, elaborate my thoughts concerning the view of man that traditional analysis had adopted from the Zeitgeist in which it arose in view of man to which most analysts subscribe as a matter of course. I will first remind you that we are referring to the concept of man’s psychological nature espoused by traditional analysis as the concept of ‘Guilty Man’, while we designate the corresponding view of self-psychology by the term ‘Tragic Man’. I will not discuss these two views of the nature of man again but will only add a comment that, so far as I know, I have not made before.

精神分析學的這兩個基本特性的第二個,將會形成今天演講的第二個主要議題的出發點。當我正在準備走入我今天跟你許渃的新的疆域,我將精心構想我關於人的觀點的思想。那是傳統的精神分析學曾經從「時代精神」採用過來。在時代精神裏,這個觀點是因為人而引起,這是大部分的精神分析師同意,作為天經地義的事情。我將會提醒你們,我們正在提到人的心理特性的觀念。這是傳統精神分析學信奉,作為「罪惡人」的觀念。而我們則是以「悲劇人」的術語指明自體心理學的對應觀點。我將不會重複討論人的天性的這兩個觀點,而僅是增加一個評論。據我所知,在以前我並沒有做過這樣的評論。

Even though Freud professed the belief that the subject matter of psychoanalysis was homo natura and that the investigation of his inner life should, therefore, be regarded as falling within the domain of the natural sciences, integrated, in particular, as closely as possible, with biology and medicine, the espousal of the quasi-biological concept of drives processed by a neutral apparatus has in fact not led to a biological concept of man. What emerged was not homo natura, a biological unit interacting with its surroundings, but ‘Guilty Man’, a psychological and moral view of man, a conception of man seen as reluctant to give up his old pleasure aims, however non-adaptive, and thus ‘resisting’ therapeutic analysis; a conception of man seen as unwilling to allow his aggressive-destructive aims to be tamed, and thus engaging in wars and/or prone to self-destruction (Freud, 1933).

即使佛洛伊德都自稱這個信仰:精神分析學的主體事情是「人類天性」。而對於人內在生活的研究,因此應該被認為是掉入自然科學的領域,特別要盡可能跟生物學及醫學合併。這種對於欲望驅力受到中立器官處理的類似生物學的觀念的信奉,,事實上,並沒有導致生物學的人的觀念。所出現的,並不是「人的天性」,一種生物學的單位,跟它的四周環境互動,而是「罪惡的人」,一種心理及道德的人的觀點。人的觀念被看作是不願意放棄他的舊有快樂目標,無論它是多麼的不適應,因此「阻抗」治療的精神分析,這是一種人的觀念,被視為不願意容許他的攻擊性及毀滅性的目標被馴服,因此從事于戰鬥,並且(或者)傾向於自我毀滅。(佛洛伊德1933年)

Within certain strict limits the explanatory framework of ‘Guilty Man’ has been very useful. But, unless it is supplemented by, and subordinated to, the self-psychological viewpoint which can put the self experience into the centre of a psychological view of man, the traditional outlook will be misleading. Self-psychology has freed itself from the distorted view of psychological man espoused by traditional analysis because, having accepted the fact that the field-defining observational stance of introspection and empathy is absolute and indeed axiomatic, it does not pose as biology or psycho-biology but accepts itself as psychology through and through.

在某種嚴格的限制內,「罪惡人」的解釋的架構是非常有用的。但是,除非它被補充,或隸屬於自體心理學的觀點,這個觀點將自體經驗納入人的心理觀點的中心,傳統的觀點將會是一種誤導。自體心理學曾經把它自己,從傳統精神分析學信奉的受到扭曲的心理的人解放出來。因為它一旦接受這個事實:內視及同理心的定義領域的觀察的立場,是絕對而且確實是自明的。它並沒有提出它自己,當作是生物學或是心理生物學,而是接受它自己,充當徹徹底底的心理學。

Traditional analysis, on the other hand, had to carry the burden imposed on it by its need to make a bow to biology via the quasi-biological conception of primary drives which are seen as being processed by a mental apparatus. The end result is, as I said before, not homo natura but a distorted psychological view which will be misleading because it considers a frequently encountered set of pathological phenomena as constituting ‘normality’ and leads thus to a serious misunderstanding of man in the therapeutic setting and of man in the arena of history.

在另一方面,傳統的精神分析學,必須帶著由它的需要賦加在它身上的負擔,為了要臣服於生物學,經有原初欲望驅力的類似生物學的觀念。這些原初欲望驅力被視為是由精神的器官所處理。如我先前所說,最終的結果並不是「人類天性」,而是一種將會是誤導的受到扭曲的心理的觀點。因為它認為一組時常被遭遇到的病理的現象,當著是組成「正常性」,因此而導致一種嚴重的誤解人,在治療的背景及人在歷史的鬥技場。

The new step that I will now take, a task of reformulation that I have up to now only alluded to, is the re-evaluation of man’s intergenerational relationships and, par excellence, the re-evaluation of the depth-psychological matrix in which, in the view of traditional analysis, certain crucial normal developments of childhood are embedded. It is, of course, the Oedipus complex that I will be talking about.

我現在將採取得新的一步,一件重新說明的工作,直到現在我僅是提到。這一步就是重新評估人的兩代之間的關係。尤其重要的是,重新評估深度心理學的基模。在這個基模裏,從傳統的精神分析學的觀點,某些重要的正常的童年的發展被深嵌腦中。當然,我將談論到的是伊底普斯情結。

雄伯譯
32hsiung@pchome.com.tw
https://springhero.wordpress.com

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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: