分析家作为另一个主体 2

The emergence of the patient’s ego will also reawaken the ego of the
analyst, on whose presence it depends during the analytic session. In
Seminar I, before the actual construction of Schema L, Lacan averred:
Just when he seems ready to come out with something more
authentic, more to the point than he has ever managed to come up
with to then, the subject, in some cases, breaks off, and utters a
statement, which might be the following—I am aware all of a
sudden of the fact of your presence…the subject himself then feels
something like a sharp bend, a sudden turn which causes him to
pass from one slope of the discourse to the other, from one aspect
of the function of speech to another.
(Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:40)

病人的自我的出现将也会重新唤醒精神分析家的自我。病人的自我就是依靠分析家的存在,在精神分析的咨商时刻。在第一研讨班,就在L基型的实际建构之前,拉康主张:

正当主体似乎准备要出来,带着某件更加真诚,更加中肯,比起在那个时候之前已经获得的东西。在这些情况,主体中断,并且表达一个陈述, 这个内容的陈述如下:「我突然知道你存在的这个事实、、主体自己因此感觉某件东西像是锐利的弯曲,突然的转弯,引起他从辞说的一个斜坡,到另外一个斜坡,从言实的功能的一个层面,到另外一个层面。

The experience which Lacan invoked in this passage had already been
described by Freud in ‘The Dynamics of Transference’ (1912b), as an
example of how the patient’s resistance makes use of the transference,
or of how the transference serves resistance. Lacan reinterpreted it as the
turn of symbolic transference towards its imaginary avatar, which equals
resistance.30

拉康在这个段落召唤的经验,弗洛伊德在“移情的动力结构”已经描述过,作为是病人如何利用移情作为抗拒的典范。或是移情如何替抗拒服务。拉康重新解释它,作为是象征的移情的转移,朝向它的想像的天使下凡。这相当等于是抗拒。
Finally, analysts are continuously solicited by their patients to leave
their position as an (unknown) Other and to intervene as an ego. In the
case of psychotic patients, who are only capable of imaginary
transference, the analyst is automatically allocated the place of a
transparent, imaginary counterpart.31 By contrast, neurotic patients are
extremely apt at seducing analysts to formulate a judgement, to express
an opinion, or to profess a piece of knowledge, which is exactly what the
above model (and the mental economy of neurosis) demands them to
avoid if they want to be successful.

最后,精神分析家继续受到病人的召唤,要离开他们的立场,作为(未知的)的大他者,并且介入作为自我。在精神病人的个案,他仅是能够想像的移情,精神分析家自动地被分配给与透明的,想像的对应物的位置。对照起来,神经症的病人极端容易诱拐精神分析家解释一个判断,表达一个意见,或是宣称某件知识。这确实就是以上的模式(神经症者的精神的活力)要求他们避免的东西,假如他们想要成功。

For example, a hysterical patient (or
a hystericized patient, for that matter) may engage in lengthy complaints
about how he had expected something altogether different from his
analyst: answers to his questions, advice on how and what to decide in
the usual dilemmas of work and love, concrete recommendations on how
to design his future, etc. He may even try to provoke a reaction by stating
that he will inevitably be driven to another practitioner if the situation
does not change rapidly.

譬如,癔症的病人(或成为癔症的病人,就那件事情而言),可能从事冗长的抱怨,关于他如何曾经预期某件跟精神分析家完全不同的东西: 对于他的问题的回答,劝告他应该如何决定,与决定什么,当面临工作与爱的通常的困境。以及具体的推荐,应该如何设计他的未来,等等。他甚至可能挑激一个反应,凭借陈述说:他无可避免地回被驱使到另外一位精神分析家,假如情况没有迅速改善的话。

Sometimes the challenge is more straightforward,
as in the case of a patient who says ‘My mother thinks I am a genius and
my father is convinced I am a fool. What do you think? Why aren’t you
saying anything? Since you seem to be unable to make up your mind,
you must be a fool yourself.’ Depending on the analyst’s own narcissism,
she will be poised to intervene, in which case the analyst’s ego will eclipse
her position as a subject. And, of course, if analysts do give their patients
concrete advice (‘I think you should leave your lover and stay with your
husband’), they are bound to discover that the patients will either use it
against them, or use it to do exactly the opposite.

有时,这种挑战赛更加直接,如同在这个个案,病人说:「我的母亲认为我是一位天才,而我的父亲则是相信我是白痴。你的看法是什么?为什么你不说任何事情?因为你似乎不能够下定你的决心,你自己一定是一位傻瓜。」依靠精神分析家的自己的自恋,她将会很镇定地介入。在那个情况,精神分析家的自我将会模糊她作为主体的立场。当然,假如确实给予他们的病人具体的劝告,(“ 我认为你应该离开你的情人,跟你的丈夫住在一块。“)他们一定会发现,病人要就是用这句话来反对他们,要不然就是确实做相反的事情。

Summarizing, it may be said that the main difference between ego psychology
and classical Freudian analysis, as Lacan conceived it during
the early 1950s, is not that the former is strengthening the imaginary
relationship between ego and (alter) ego, whereas the latter strictly
operates within the symbolic framework of subject and Other. The
difference is rather that ego-psychologists place their money on ego building
techniques to the detriment of a questioning of the patient’s
history, whereas Lacan’s model aimed to install and explore the symbolic
relationship between the subject and the Other, despite the relentless
interference of imaginary identifications, both in the patient and the
analyst.

总结一下,我们可以说,自我心理学与古典弗洛伊德学派的精神分析之间的主要差异,依照拉康在1950年构想它。主要的差异并不是,自我-心理学正在强化自我与(他)我之间的想像的关系。古典的弗洛伊德学派精神分析则是严格地运作,在主体与大他者之间的象征的架构。相反地,差异的地方是,自我-心理学家将他们的重点放置在建造自我的技术,结果伤害到对于病人的历史的询问。而拉康的模式则是目标朝着安置,并且探索在病人与精神分析家两人身上,主体与大他者之间的象征的关系,尽管想像的认同的无情的干涉。

Not taking the patient’s words at face value, much less employing
them as building blocks for the construction of a new identity, the analyst’s
task consisted in bringing the patient to the point where he questions the
accepted meaning of words, beliefs and values. In the ‘Rome Discourse’
Lacan stated that ‘the art of the analyst must be to suspend the subject’s
certainties until their last mirages have been consumed’ (Lacan 1977e
[1953]:43), so that the subject can make a commitment that is more in
accordance with the true nature of her desire.

精神分析家的工作并不是将病人的话语表面看待,更不是运用这些话语,当著是新的身份的建造的建筑材料。精神分析家的工作在于将病人带到这个点。在那里,他质疑话语,信仰,与价值的被接纳的意义。在“罗马辞说“,拉康陈述:「精神分析家的艺术一定就是悬置主体的确定性,直到最后的幻景已经被消耗。」这样,主体才能够作出奉献,跟她的欲望的真实的天性更加符合的奉献。

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: