分析家作为另外一个主体

THE ANALYST AS OTHER SUBJECT
精神分析家作为另外一个主体

Since Lacan conceived all his contributions to psychoanalytic theory
from the early 1950s as recuperations of Freud’s legacy, against the
reigning discourse of ego-psychology, it does not come as a surprise that
his initial attempts to describe the function and position of the analyst
were strongly flavoured by his trenchant criticism of mainstream
psychoanalysis.

因为拉康构想他对于精神分析理论的所有的贡献,从1950年代开始,作为是弗洛伊德的遗产地复得,对抗自我-心理学的盛行的辞说。不足为奇的是,他最初的企图,想要描述精神分析家的功能与立场,强烈地被渲染着他对于主流精神分析的锐利的批判。

In the ‘Rome Discourse’ he defined the analyst’s task
primarily in a negative way, choosing his examples of bad practice across
the board of psychoanalytic activity. Unscrupulously, Lacan argued that
analysts whose aim is to redesign their patients’ lives, or to restore their
relationships with the outside world, betray their own profession.
Scorning the contemporary ‘analysis of resistance’, he reproached his
colleagues for disclosing personal feelings and for presenting themselves
as role models (ideal egos) within the ‘here and now’ of the clinical
setting.

在他的“罗马辞说”,他定义精神分析家的工作,最初是以负面的方式。他选择精神分析的活动的领域里恶行恶状的实践的例行。非常不谨慎地,拉康主张:精神分析家的目标,若是朝着重新设计他们的病人的生活,或是目标朝着恢复他们的病人跟外在世界的关系,这些精神分析家都是背叛他们自己的专业。拉康藐视当代的“抗拒的精神分析”,他谴责他的同事,因为他们泄漏个人的感觉,以及因为他们呈现他们自己,作为理想自我的典范,在临床背景的“此时此刻”。

To Lacan, these analysts were breaking their promise of
psychoanalytic treatment because they were simply facilitating
introspection, fostering social competence, building intellectual maturity,
and nurturing communicative abilities, whilst promoting their own lifestyle
as an image of general psychic health with which the patients were
supposed to identify. Lacan believed these therapeutic interventions to
be indicative of the analyst’s avoidance of the symbolic power of speech
and language—the prime source of psychoanalytic effectiveness—in
favour of an imaginary level of functioning.15

对于拉康,这些精神分析家正在破坏他们对精神分析的治疗的许诺。因为他们仅是内省方便行事,培养社会的胜任能力,建造知识的成熟园满,以及滋长沟通的能力。另一方面,他们又提升他们自己的生活方式,作为是通常心灵健康的意象。病人们被认为是认同通常心灵健康的这个意象。拉康相信这些治疗的介入,指示著精神分析的逃避言说与语言的象征的力量–精神分析的有效性的最初的来源—以迁就功能的想像的层次。

Although Lacan’s crusade against the mission statement of American
ego-psychology can be seen as an idiosyncratic act of recalcitrance, he was
in fact merely rewording one of Freud’s admonitions in ‘Lines of Advance
in Psycho-Analytic Therapy’ (1919a[1918]). In this paper Freud criticized
the way in which the Swiss school (Jung) and some American psychoanalysts
had conceived the analyst’s task as similar to that of indomitable educators,
godlike creatures who incessantly attempt to mould the uneducated into
images of themselves. Against this view, Freud declared:

虽然拉康对于美国的自我-心理学的使命陈述的批判抨击,可以视为是一种顽强的怪癖的行为。他实际上仅是用不同词语陈述,弗洛伊德的警告,在“精神分析的治疗的前进的路线”(1919a)。在这篇论文,弗洛伊德批判瑞士学派(荣格学派)与美国的精神分析家构想精神分析家的工作的方式,作为是类同大无畏的教育家的工作。他们像是神性一般的人们,不断地企图将没有受过教育的人们塑造成为他们自己的意象。反对这样的观点,弗洛伊德宣称:

We refused most emphatically to turn a patient who puts himself
into our hands in search of help into our private property, to decide
his fate for him, to force our own ideals upon him, and with the
pride of a Creator to form him in our own image and see that it is
good…In my opinion, this is after all only to use violence, even
though it is overlaid with the most honourable motives.
(ibid.: 164–165)

我们非常强调地拒绝将病人转化成为我们的财产,虽然病人将他自己放置在我们手里,寻求帮助。我们拒绝代替病人决定他的命运,强迫我们的理想在他们身上,并且带着创造者的骄傲,用我们自己的意象塑造他,然后顾盼自得,情况良好、、、依我之见,这毕竟仅是使用暴力,即使这个暴力充满荣耀的动机。

As an appropriate alternative Freud suggested the ‘rule of abstinence’,
which consists in the analyst’s refusal to gratify the patient’s needs and
demands so that all substitute satisfactions are avoided and a productive
level of suffering is maintained. Freud refused to model the analytic
treatment on a mental hospital’s policy to look after patients and to make
them feel as comfortable as possible inside. He also emphasized that
whatever educational effect psychoanalysis may entail, analysts should
ensure that their patients do not come to resemble them, but are
encouraged in the liberation and realization of their own being.

作为一个合适的替代选择,弗洛伊德建议这个“节制的原则”。这个“节制的原则”主要在于精神分析家拒绝满足病人的需要与要求。这样,所有的替换的满足都被避免,这样,才能维持遭受痛苦具有创造的层次。弗洛伊德拒绝将精神分析的治疗,模拟精神病院的政策,为了照顾病人,并且让病人的内部尽可能感觉舒适。弗洛伊德也强调,精神分析可能涵盖的任何教育的效果,应该保证,他们的病人并不以逐渐类似精神分析家。而是要鼓励病人从事他们的自己的生命实存的解放与体现。

Lacan’s antagonism between the imaginary and the symbolic followed
Freud’s opposition between non-analytic image building and proper
analytic abstinence. It can be summarized as an antagonism between the
psychic register of insuperable, yet regulated difference and that of
deceptive, yet fascinating resemblance.16 Apropos of the symbolic, Lacan
recognized the paragon of the human symbolic function (the ‘original
symbolism’) in the complex rules of matrimonial alliance, the elaborate
laws of kinship and the practices of exchanging gifts that preside over
otherwise ‘pre-modern’, non-industrialized communities (Lacan 1977e
[1953]:65–66).

拉康将想像界与象征界作为互具敌意,是遵循弗洛伊德将非-精神分析的意象的建造,跟本体的精神分析的节制的互相对立。这个互具敌意能够被总结为:心灵的铭记的无法被征服,可是又被规范的差异,与欺骗,可是又是令人著迷的类似之间的互具敌意。关于象征界,拉康体认出这个典范:人类象征的功能的典范,(原初的象征主义),在婚姻联盟的复杂的规则里,亲属关系的复杂的法则里,与礼物交换的实践。这些统辖著不同的“前-现代”,非-工业化的社会。

Whilst none of these regulations is rooted in a preordained
natural order, they structure the natural living conditions in
such a way that distinct group members are continuously forced to
participate in existing agreements and to negotiate new pacts.17 By
contrast, Lacan located the source of the human imaginary in the socalled
‘mirror-stage’ (Lacan 1977c[1949]), whereby the child develops
its identity (its ego) via an identification with the twin image reflected
by the mirror or, in the absence of reflective surfaces, by a similar other.18

虽然这些规则没有一条是根源于预先注定的自然的秩序,它们架构自然的活生生的情况,用这样一种方式,以致于明显的团体成员继续不断地被迫参与现存的协定,并且协商新的盟约。对照起来,拉康将人类的想像的起源定位在社会化的“镜像阶段”。在“镜像阶段”那里,小孩发展它的自我的认同,经由镜子反映的孪生意象的认同。或者,在反映的表面欠缺的时刻,由类似的他者作为镜像反映。

In Seminar I, and in reference to Freud, Lacan defined the ego accordingly
as an agency that ‘is constructed like an onion, one could peel it and
discover the successive identifications which have constituted it’ (Lacan
1988b[1953–54]:171).19 Consequently, the human imaginary has nothing
to do with the installation and regulation of difference; it is fundamentally
geared towards the advancement of similarity and instead of a
symbolic
truce, it induces jealousy, rivalry, competition and aggression.
在第一研讨班,提到弗洛伊德时,拉康遵循弗洛伊德,将自我定义为一位代理者,“像洋葱一样被建造的代理者。我们能够剥开洋葱,然然发现连续的认同的表层,构成这个自我”。结果,人类的想像跟差异的安置与规则,根本没有任何关系。人类的想享基本上被触动,朝向类似的前进,而非是朝向象征的休战。人类的想像引申出敌意,競争与侵凌。

At the end of Seminar II (1988c[1954–55]:243), Lacan integrated
these two discordant dimensions of the symbolic and the imaginary into
a comprehensive cartography of psychoanalytic treatment, placing the
principles of ego-psychology orthogonally to a clinical practice which
he deemed more loyal to Freud’s inspiration. This schema of analytic
communication (Lacan 1993[1955–56]:14), to which Lacan also referred
as the ‘Schema L’, comprises four terms (S, o, o’ and O) and two
conflicting relations (imaginary and symbolic-unconscious).20

在第二研讨班的结束时,拉康将象征界与想像界的这两个不协调的维度,合并成为精神分析治疗的一个全面的地图制作。拉康将自我-心理学的原则,正统地放置在临床的实践里。他认为这是更加忠实于弗洛伊德的启发。精神分析的沟通的这个基模,拉康也提到,作为是“L型基模”,它包括四个术语(S,0,0‘, O),与两个冲突的关系 (想像与象征的无意识)。

In this schema the therapeutic alliance between the clinician and the
patient in an ego-psychological setting is displayed as an imaginary
relation between an ego (o) and another ego (o’).

在这个基模,治临床医生与病人的治疗的联盟,在自我-心理学的背景,被展示出来,作为是想像的关系,处于自我(o),与另外一个自我(o‘)之间。

Lacan proclaimed that
the majority of contemporary clinicians were viewing the patient as an
objectified other whose ego needs ‘to gather its strength, to realise itself,
to integrate itself (Lacan 1988c[1954–55]:245). In keeping with his theory
of the ego as an imaginary construction, he then argued that the patient’s
ego ‘can only re-encounter and reconstitute itself by way of the fellow
being the subject has before him—or behind him’ (ibid.: 245), which is
of course the figure of the analyst. Hence, the patient and the analyst had
become allies in an imaginary exchange of egos, leading to the
replacement of the patient’s former (pathological) identity by the new
(healthy) identity of the analyst.21

拉康宣称:大多数的当代临床医生,正将病人看待作为是一个被客体化的他者。自我需要这个他者来聚集它的力量,为了实现它自己,为了融合它自己。为了跟他的自我的理论保持一致,作文是想像的建构,拉康因此主张,病人的自我仅能够重新遭遇,重新建构它自己,凭借主体在他面前,或在他背后,拥有的这位同胞。这位同胞当然就是精神分析家的人物。因此,病人与精神分析家已经变成联盟,在想像地交换自我。导致病人的先前的(病态)的认同,被精神分析家的新的认同所取代。

Figure I Schema L
Source: J.Lacan, The Seminar, Book III, The Psychoses, New York,
W.W.Norton, 1993, p. 14.
What does the analyst want? 65

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: