內視,同理心,及精神健康的半圓 09

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 09
海因茲、科胡特

195
SUMMARY
綱要

And now a few words about the re-interpretation of the Oedipus myth that I promised you before. It is a remarkable fact that nobody, as far as I know, has pointed out, at least not in an effective way, a feature of the Oedipus myth which refers to the intergenerational relationship in aspect of the story which is truly remarkable, especially by comparison with the parallel aspect of the intergenerational story about Odysseus and Telemachus as told us by Homer. It is as if analysts had reversed their usual stance as regards King Oedipus by taking the manifest content father murder, incest as the essence, while disregarding clues, in particular genetic clues, that may allow us to see the relationship between parents and son in a different light.

現在就先前我跟你們承諾的重心詮釋伊底普斯神話,我現在說幾句話。這是一件引人注意的事實,據我所知,沒有人曾經指出伊底普斯神話的特徵,至少不是以一種有效的方式。這個特徵提到兩代之間的關係,從故事的層面,是非常引人注意的,特別是跟荷馬告訴我們的奧德賽及鐵力馬丘斯的兩代之間的對比層面,比較起來。好像精神分析學家已經倒轉它們平常的立場,關於伊底普斯國王,將明顯的內容,如弑父,亂倫,作為本質,而忽視線索,特別是基因的線索。它們可能讓我們能夠從不同的觀點,看待父母與兒子的關係。

Is it not the most significant dynamic-genetic feature of the Oedipus story that Oedipus was a rejected child? Never mind the all-explanatory oracle that served as a convenient vehicle for rationalizing a human failure as obedience to the gods. The fact is that Oedipus was not wanted by his parents and that he was put out into the cold by them. He was abandoned in the wilderness to die. While his appealing-assertive baby self found substitute parents’ own deep the sense of his original rejection must have remained. Does our attention to this part of the story not allow us to see King Oedipus’ ‘Oedipus complex’ in a different light?

伊底普斯原本是一個被拋棄的小孩,這難道不是最重要的動力與基因的特徵?我們不要在意詮釋一切的預言,充當一種方便的工具,作為人類未能服從神祗的合理化。事實上,伊底普斯原先被父母拋棄,他被他們丟棄於寒冷的荒郊,他被拋棄于荒野,任其死亡。雖然他的訴求與主張的嬰兒的自我找到替代父母的自己的自我,他原先被拋棄感覺始終刻骨銘心。我們若是注意故事的這個部分,難道不會讓我們能夠從不同觀點,看待「伊底普斯情結」?

And does it not, by stark contrast, illuminate even further, how Odysseus’ normal intergenerational response, the semi-circle of his plough, led to a relationship between father and son ,remind you of their shoulder-to-shoulder fight against outside disturbers, thus re-establishing the interrupted intra-familial bond which, I submit is the true and nuclear essence of humanness. This nuclear essence of man is not a surface phenomenon, not part of a precariously maintained civilized crust of the personality or of a reaction formation. It constitutes the essential nucleus of the self and the access to it in our patients is often attained only with the greatest difficulty. But now I will stop.

憑藉明顯的對比,奧德賽的正常的兩代之間的回應,他的犁的半圓,如何導致父親與兒子之間的關係,難道不是啟明得更為深刻?難道沒有讓你想到他們並肩作戰,對抗外來的侵犯者,因此重新建立受到干擾的家庭內部的默契?我認為這個家庭內部的默契,就是人性的真實與核心本質。人的核心本質並不是外表的現象,不是人格的搖搖欲墜的文明的外殼部分,或是反動的形成的部分。它組成自我的基本核心,從我們父母身上接近它,往往是費盡困難,才能獲得。但是現在,我點到為止。

My main message today is the same that I gave twenty-five years ago when I was jarred into action because I saw that the operational mismatch that led to the psychobiological framework of analytic theory, had brought about severe distortions of our perception of man’s psychological essence without yet achieving a true integration of analysis with biology and medicine.

今天,我的主要訊息是跟我二十五年前提出的相同,當時我被刺激採取行動,因為我看出,運作的不協調,導致精神分析理論的心理與生物架構,曾經促成我們對於人的心理本質的感覺有嚴重的扭曲,可是也沒有獲得精神分析學與生物學及醫學真正的融合。

It was, in particular, Freud’s positing of the primacy of the drives that had provided the basis for a specific, incomplete concept of psychological man,guilty Man, told to be civilized, and unwilling to comply. On the other hand, I felt that the two universes accessible to science are defined operationally via the basic stance of the observer. The sciences which explore the fields that are accessible via extrospection: the physical and biological sciences. And the sciences which explore the fields that are accessible via introspection: psychoanalysis par excellence.

特別是,佛洛伊德提出欲望驅力的優先地位,供應基礎,作為心理人,明確而不完整的觀念。人作為罪惡人,被告訴要文明化,但是又不願意順從。在另一方面,我覺得,科學得以接近的這兩個宇宙,一是經由觀察者的基本立場,來運作性定義。探索經由外視而獲得接近的領域的科學:也就是物理與生物科學。另外一種是探索經由內視而獲得接近的領域;最為重要的就是精神分析學。

The first part of my paper repeated what I said twenty-five years ago. And I hope that I have now stated my message regarding the basic experience-distant theory of psychoanalysis clearly and intelligibly.

我的論文的第一部分,重複我二十五年前所說的。我希望,我現在清楚而明白地陳述我的訊息,關於精神分析學基本的遠距經驗理論。

In the second part I re-interpreted the position and significance of an experience-near theory, the theory of the Oedipus complex, in the light of the shift that I advocate from psycho-biology to psychology, from homo natura to homo psychologicus. And I advanced the claim that the force that impels us to carry out the semi-circle of Odysseus’ plough lies at the most central core of our self, while the forces that motivate us towards the deeds of King Oedipus constitute a more superficial layer of the self that covers the core.

在第二個部分,我重新詮釋一個鄰近經驗的立場與重要性。伊底普斯情結的理論,根據我主張的轉化的觀點,從心理與生物學到心理學,從人類天性到人類心理因素。我提出這個主張:驅使我們執行奧德賽的犁的半圓的力量,在於我們自我最中央的核心。而激發我們朝向伊底普斯國王的力量,則是組成一個更加浮淺的覆蓋核心的自我的表層。

Is this conclusion motivated by the falsifying need for an optimistic outlook on man? It is not. Science must be neither optimistic nor pessimistic that observes and explains. As a depth psychologist I observe regularly that behind the oedipal disturbance lie flawed selfobject responses. And that behind them the primary hope for a normal, self-growth-promoting milieu is still alive. Should, in the future, data become available that demonstrate still deeper layers, we will verify the evidence and change our theory.

這個結論是受到虛假的需要樂觀的對於人的觀點所啟發嗎?作為觀察與詮釋的科學,既不是樂觀,也不是悲觀。做為一位深度心理學家,我規律地觀察,位於伊底普斯的困擾背後,是具有瑕疵的自體客體的回應。在它們背後,原初希望作為正常的提升自我成長的環境,依舊鮮活。有朝一日,假如證明更深層的資訊能夠被獲得,我們將會驗證這個證據,然後改變我們的理論。

What I cannot see changing, however, is the psychological outlook. If such a change were to come about, it would indeed mean that analysis, that depth-psychology has been superseded and a thing of the past. But this possibility need not concern us now. Analysis is in its childhood. Hampered by such misleading medical analogies as the removal of disease instead of the reestablishment of psychological health by the interpretive, empathic responsiveness to its claims, psychoanalysis has hardly yet scratched the surface of the fascinating mystery of man.

可是,我看不出會改變的是心理學的外觀。萬一這樣一種改變發生,那將確實意味著,精神分析學已經被取代,成為昨日黃花。但是這個可能性,我們現在不需要杞人憂天。精神分析學還在發展初期。儘管受到如此誤導的醫學類比所妨礙,去充當疾病的消除,而不是充當心理鍵康的重新建立,以詮釋的同理心,去回應它的主張,人類的迷人的神秘的表面,還是沒有受到太大的刮傷。

And how can analysis return to its nuclear self, move on to fulfil its destiny by realizing its essential programme of action? It can do so only if it can make the decisive developmental step of the full transmuting internalization of the great parental selfobject of its past. If it succeeds in this task, it will be able to do what it must in order to stay alive, to reach its peak before it declines: it must turn from the study of Freud to the study of man.

精神分析學如何回答它的核心自我,以實現它的基本的行動計畫,來實踐它的命運?只有當它跨出這個決定性的發展的一步,將過去的父母的自體客體的內化充分地轉化,它才有可能做到這樣。假如它成功完成這件工作,它將能夠做它所必需做的事,為了保持鮮活,為了在它衰微之前,到達它的顛峰,它必須從佛洛伊德的研究,轉向對於人的研究。

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: