Collected 7 态度与类型的难题

Collected 7
Analytical Psychology
分析心理学
Carl Jung
卡尔荣格
IV
第四章
THE PROBLEM OF THE ATTITUDE-TYPE
态度-类型的难题
1
56 The incompatibility of the two theories discussed in the pre-
ceding chapters requires a standpoint superordinate to both, in which they could come together in unison. ,We are certainly not entitled to discard one in favour of the other, however conven¬ient this expedient might be. For, if we examine the two theo¬ries without prejudice, we cannot deny that both contain signifi¬cant truths, and, contradictory as these are, they should not be regarded as mutually exclusive. The Freudian theory is attrac¬tively simple, so much so that it almost pains one if anybody drives in the wedge of a contrary assertion. But the same is true of Adler’s theory. It too is of illuminating simplicity and ex¬plains just as much as the Freudian theory. No wonder, then, that the adherents of both schools obstinately cling to their one¬sided truths. For humanly understandable reasons they are un-willing to give up a beautiful, rounded theory in exchange for a paradox, or, worse still, lose themselves in the confusion of con¬tradictory points of view.

在前几个章节被讨论的这两个主题的不相和谐,要求一个可以统辖两者的观点。在这个观点里,他们能够团结一致的汇集一块。我们确实都没有资格抛弃其中一个,来赞同另外一个,无论这个权宜之计是多么方便。因为,假如我们没有偏见地检查这两个理论,我们无法否认,两个理论都包含重要的真理。虽然这些真理互相矛盾,它们不应该被认为是互相排斥。弗洛伊德的理论单纯迷人,以致它几乎让人痛苦,假如有任何人插进一个相反主张的嵌入。但是就阿德勒的理论而言,情况也是一样。它也是属于启蒙的单纯,并且跟弗洛依德理论同样详尽地解释。难怪,两个学派的主张者都固执1地坚持他们单边的真理。因为人性的可理解的理由,他们并不愿意放弃一个美丽而圆融的理论,来交换一个悖论。或是,更加糟糕地,丧失他们自己,在矛盾的观点的混乱里。

57 Now, since both theories are in a large measure correct-that
is to say, since they both appear to explain their material-it fol¬lows that a neurosis must have two opposite aspects, one of which is grasped by the Freudian, the other by the Adlerian the¬ory. But how comes it that each investigator sees only one side, and why does each maintain that he has the only valid view? It must come from the fact that, owing to his psychological pecu¬liarity, each investigator most readily sees that factor in the neu¬rosis which corresponds to his peculiarity. It cannot be assumed that the cases of neurosis seen by Adler are totally different from those seen by Freud. Both are obviously working with the same material; but because of personal peculiarities they each see things from a different angle, and thus they evolve fundamen¬tally different views and theories.

现在,因为两个理论有很大程度的正确,换句话说,因为它们两者似乎都解释他们的材料,因此可以推论,神经症一定有两个对立的层面。其中一个层面被弗洛依德学派理解,另外一个则是被阿德勒学派理解。但是为什么每个研究者仅是看见一边?为什么每个研究者都主张,他拥唯一正确的观点?它一定是来自这个事实,由于他的心理的特殊性,每一位研究员非常快速地看见神经症的那个因素,对应于他的特殊性的神经症。我们无法认为,由阿德勒看见的神经症的个案,完全不同于弗洛依德看见的那些个案。两人都显而易见地研究相同的材料,但是因为个人的特殊性,他们每个人看见事情,从不同的角度。因此,他们演化出基本上不同的观点与理论。

41

60
ON THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE UNCONSCIOUS
Adler sees how a subject who feels suppressed and inferior tries to secure an illusory superior¬ity by means of “protests,” “arrangements,” and other appropri¬ate devices directed equally against parents, teachers, regulations, authorities, situations, institutions, and such. Even sexuality may figure among these devices. This view lays undue emphasis upon the subject, before which the idiosyncrasy and significance of objects entirely vanish. Objects are regarded at best as vehi¬cles of suppressive tendencies. I shall probably not be wrong in assuming that the love relation and other desires directed upon objects exist equally in Adler as essential factors; yet in his theory of neurosis they do not play the principal role as¬signed to them by Freud.

阿德勒看见感觉,被压抑与低劣的主体尝试是获得幻觉的优越,凭借“抗议”,“安排”与其他的适当的设计,被用来同样反对父母亲,老师,规范,权威,情况与体制,等等。甚至连性都可以规属在这些设计之内。这个观点过份地强调主体。在主体面前,客体的怪癖与重要性完全消失。客体充其量被认为是压制倾向的工具。我将可能不是错误,当我假定,在客体身上被引导的爱的关系与其他欲望同样存在于阿德勒那里,作为一个基本的因素。可是在他的神经症的理论,他们并没有扮演主要的角色,如同被弗洛依德指定给它们的角色。

58 Freud sees his patient in perpetual dependence on, and in relation to, significant objects. Father and mother play a large part here; whatever other significant influences or conditions enter into the life of the patient go back in a direct line of cau¬sality to these prime factors. The Piece de resistance of his the¬ory is the concept of transference, i.e., the patient’s relation to the doctor. Always a specifically qualified object is either desired or met with resistance, and this reaction always follows the pat¬tern established in earliest childhood through the relation to fa¬ther and mother. What comes from the subject is essentially a blind striving after pleasure; but this striving always acquires its quality from specific objects. With Freud objects are of the greatest significance and possess almost exclusively the deter¬mining power, while the subject remains remarkably insignifi¬cant and is really nothing more than the source of desire for pleasure and a “seat of anxiety.” As already pointed out, Freud recognizes ego-instincts, but this term alone is enough to show that his conception of the subject differs toto coelo from Adler’s, where the subject figures as the determining factor.

弗洛依德看见他的病人处于永远的依靠重阳的客体,并与之息息相关。父亲与母亲在此扮演重要角色。任何进入病人的生命的重要的影响与情况,都以因果律的直接脉络回溯到这些原初的因素。他的理论的“抗拒”就是移情的观念。譬如,病人跟医生的关系。总是一个明确有资格的客体,要就是被欲望,要不就是被遭遇抗拒。这种反应总是遵循早期童年被建立的模式。通过对于父亲与母亲的关系。从主体出来的东西,基本上是一个盲目地追寻快乐。但是这种追寻总是获得它的特质,从明确的客体。对于弗洛依德,客体非常重要,并且拥有几乎是专有的决定的力量。虽然主体始终明显地微不足道,并且确实仅仅是欲望快乐的来源,与“焦虑的位置”。如同已经被指出的,弗洛依德体认出自我-本能。但是光是这个术语就足够显示:他对于主体的观念完全不同于阿德勒的主体的观念。在阿德勒的观念,主体作为是决定因素的人物。

59 Certainly both investigators see the subject in relation to the
object; but how differently this relation is seen! With Adler the emphasis is placed on a subject who, no matter what the object, seeks his own security and supremacy; with Freud the emphasis is placed wholly upon objects, which, according to their specific character, either promote or hinder the subject’s desire for pleasure.

的确,两位研究者看见主体跟客体的关系。但是这个关系被看待,以多么不同的方式!对于阿德勒,强调点被放置在主体。无论客体是什么,主体寻找他自己的安全与优越。对于弗洛依德,强调点完全被放在客体。依照它们的明确的特性,这些客体要就是提升,要不就是阻碍主体追寻快乐的欲望。
42

THE PROBLEM OF THE ATTITUDE-TYPE
This difference can hardly be anyrh;ngibut eh’ om a ,l;ffrrf’nce of temperament, a contrast between two types of human mentality, one of which finds the determining agency pre-eminently in the subject, the other in the object. A middle view, it may be that of common sense, would suppose that human behaviour is conditioned as much by the subject as by the object. The two investigators would probably assert, on the other hand, that their theory does not envisage a psychological explanation of the normal man, but is a theory of neurosis. But in that case Freud would have to explain and treat some of his patients along Ad¬lerian lines, and Adler condescend to give earnest consideration in certain instances to his former teacher’s point of view-which
6
has occurred neither on the one side nor on the other.

这个差异几乎不是别的,就仅是性情的差异,两种的人类的精神的对照。其中一个找到决定性的代理,显著地在主体身上。另外一位则是在客体身上。一个中庸之道,可能是常识的中庸之道,假定人类的行为同样受到主体的制约,也同样受到客体的制约。另一方面,这两位研究员将可能会主张,他们的理论并没有构想一个心理的解释,对于正常人们。而是神经症者的理由。但是假如是那个情况,弗洛依德将必须解释并且治疗他的一些病人,沿着阿德勒的脉络。阿德勒将必须屈尊降贵地给予热诚的考虑,在某些情况,给予他以前的老师的观点。这个观点既没有发生在这一边,也没有发生在另外一边。

The spectacle of this dilemma made me ponder the question: are there at least two different human types, one of them more interested in the object, the other more interested in himself? And does that explain why the one sees only the one and the other only the other, and thus each arrives at totally different conclusions?

这个困境的景象让我沉思这个问题:至少有两种不同的类型的人吗?其中一种更加对客体感到興趣,而另外一种对他自己感到興趣?那可以解释为什么前者仅是看见前者,而后者仅是看见后者?因此,每一个获得完全不同的结论?

As we have said, it was hardly to be supposed that fate selected the patients so meticulously that a definite group invariably reached a definite doctor. For some time it had struck me, in connection both with myself and with my colleagues, that there are some cases which make a distinct anneal, while others somehow refuse to “click.” It is of crucial importance for the treatment whether a good relationship between doctor and pa¬tient is possible or not.

如同我们曾经说过,我们几乎无法认为,命运如此挑剔地选择病人,以致于一个明确的团体一成不变地到达一位明确的医生。有段时间,我曾经想到,关于我自己与我的同事。有些个案一拍即合,而还有些个案则是格格不入。对于治疗,这是非常重要的,医生与病人之间的良好的关系是否可能。

If some measure of natural confidence does not develop within a short period, then the patient will do better to choose another doctor. I myself have never shrunk from recommending to a colleague a patient whose peculiarities were not in my line or were unsympathetic to me, and indeed this is in the patient’s own interests. I am positive that in such a case I would not do good work.

假如某个程度的自然的信任并没有发展,在短时期里,那么病人将最好是选择另外一位医生。我自然从来没有从退缩,不将一位病人推荐给同事。这位病人的特殊性跟我不对味,或是跟我没有同理心。的确,这是为了病人的利益。我持正面看法,在这样的个案,我将不会做得好。

Everyone has his personal limi¬tations, and the psychotherapist in particular is well advised never to disregard them. Excessive personal differences and in¬compatibilities cause resistances that are disproportionate and out of place, though they are not altogether unjustified. The Freud-Adler controversy is simply a paradigm and one single in¬stance among many possible attitude-types.

每个人都拥有他的个人限制。特别是心理治疗师,他最后永远不要忽略这些限制。过分的个人的差异与不相和谐会引起抗拒。这些抗拒是不成比例,也不合适。虽然它们并不完全没有理由。弗洛依德与阿德勒的争论仅是一个典范,是许多可能的态度-类型的一个明显例子。

雄伯译
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: