拉康:移情的策略

Chapter 3
第三章
Strategies of transference
移情的策略
THE MANY FACES OF TRANSFERENCE
移情的众多面向

In a small, seemingly futile passage on the termination of analysis in
‘On Beginning the Treatment’, Freud confessed that since the start of his
psychoanalytic career he had noticed a remarkable change in his patients’
attitudes towards the progression of their analysis:

在“治疗的开始”,针对精神分析的终止的这篇简短,表现没有效用的段落里,弗洛伊德坦白承认,自从他的精神分析的事业的开始,他已经注意到一个明显的改变,在他的病人的态度,朝向精神分析的进展。

In the early years of my psychoanalytic practice I used to have the
greatest difficulty in prevailing on my patients to continue their
analysis. This difficulty has long since been shifted, and I now
have to take the greatest pains to induce them to give up.
(Freud 1913c:130)

在我精神分析实践的早年岁月,我常常遭遇极大的困难,要劝告我的病人继续他们的精神分析。这个困难长久以来已经改变。我现在必须花费巨大努力,才能劝导病人放弃。

Freud did not clarify the mainspring of this problem, but numerous
examples can be adduced to demonstrate that the entire issue was
dominated by the vicissitudes of transference.

弗洛伊德并没有澄清这个难题的主要的动力。但是,无数的例子可以作为补充,用来证明整个的问题受到移情的起伏的支配。

For instance, shortly before publishing ‘On Beginning the Treatment’,
Freud had informed Sandor Ferenczi about his ticklish experience with
Elma Palos, whom he had agreed to treat for a short period of about
three months, until Easter 1912:

譬如,就在出版“治疗的开始”不久之前,弗洛伊德曾经告知费伦奇,关于他跟爱玛 帕洛思的神经质的经验。弗洛伊德曾经同意治疗帕洛思,经过大约三个月的简短时期。

With Elma things continue to go gloomily. She has brought out
several quite surprisingly intelligent insights, but she doesn’t want
to get into the experience with you and doesn’t seem to want to
finish with me; i.e., because of the transference she wishes to extend
her stay past Easter, which I don’t want to do. So I am cooling off
noticeably again.
(Brabant et al. 1993:362)

对于爱玛,事情继续阴暗地进行。她已经显露好几个相当令人惊奇的智慧的洞察力。但是,她并不想要跟你一起进入这个经验。并且似乎并不想要跟我一块完成这个经验。换句话说,因为移情,她希望延伸她的停留,超越复活节。我并不想要这样做。所以,我再次明显地冷却下来。

This was neither Freud’s first encounter with a patient reluctant to leave,
nor was it the first time he attributed the phenomenon to the power of
transference. In April 1900, at a moment when he was still groping his
way as to the nature and function of the transference, Freud had already
told Wilhelm Flies about its effect on the duration of his analysis of a
certain Mr E:

这既不是弗洛伊德的第一次遭遇病人不愿意离开,也不是他第一次将这个现象归属于移情的力量。在1900年4月,在这个时刻,他依旧正在模索他的途径,关于移情的特性与功能。弗洛伊德曾经告诉弗利兹,关于移情的影响,对于他对某位E先生的精神分析。

I am beginning to understand that the apparent endlessness of the
treatment is something that occurs regularly and is connected with
the transference…The asymptotic conclusion of the treatment
basically makes no difference to me, but is yet one more
disappointment to outsiders…Since he had to suffer through all
my technical and theoretical errors, I actually think that a future
case could be solved in half the time.
(Masson 1985:409)

我正在理解,治疗的明显的没有终止是某件规律发生的事情,并且跟移情息息相关。治疗的非症状的结论,对我而言,基本上没有任何差异。可是,对于外面的人而言,却是又一次的令人失望。
因为他必须承受痛苦,经历我的技术与理论的错误。我实际上认为,未来的个案,用一半的时间,就能够被解决。

Freud did not have to wait long to test the value of his assertion, for
some six months later an eighteen-year-old hysterical girl suffering from
a welter of psychic and somatic symptoms was referred to him by her
father (ibid.: 427). Compared to Mr E’s treatment, which lasted for more
than a year, Freud’s analysis of Dora (Freud 1905e[1901]) took a mere
three months. This could be seen as an even better result than that which
Freud had anticipated in his letter to Flies, were it not for the fact that
the girl herself decided to break off her analysis before reaching a
satisfactory solution of her problems.1

弗洛伊德并没有等待很久,他就测试他的主张的价值。经过大约六根月之后,一位十八岁的癔症的女孩,遭受心灵与肉体的症状的翻滚。她的父亲带她去就诊弗洛伊德。跟E 先生延续一年多的治疗比较起来,弗洛伊德对于朵拉的精神分析,仅是花费三个月。这能够被视为是具有更佳的结果,比起弗洛伊德曾经写信给弗利兹所预期的结果。假如不是因为这个事实:女孩自己决的要中断她的精神分析,这样,她才能获得她的难题的令人满意的解决。

Again Freud felt that he had made
a technical and theoretical error, and again he regarded his patient’s
behaviour as the corollary of her ‘transferences’ [sic], clinical phenomena
encompassing ‘new editions or facsimiles of the impulses and phantasies
which are aroused and made conscious during the progress of analysis’
whereby the patient replaces ‘some earlier person by the person of the
physician’ (ibid.: 116). On the one hand Freud conceded that he must
have been blinded by Dora’s diligence, not seeing that her identification
of him with the dreaded Mr K fuelled her desire to take revenge. On the
other hand he ventured the hypothesis that his technical mistake must
have been rooted in a failure to direct Dora’s attention to her unconscious
homosexual love for Mrs K.2 Whatever the nature of Freud’s mistake,
Dora’s transference did not catalyse an interminable analytic process,
but prompted her to finish the treatment prematurely.

而且,弗洛伊德感觉,他曾经犯了一个技术与理论的错误。再次,他将他的病人的行为,视为是她的 移情的必然结果。这些临床的现象涵盖冲动与幻想的新版的拷贝。在精神分析的进展期间,这些冲动与幻想被召唤出来,而且被知道。凭借精神分析,病人用医生这个人物,取代某位早先的人物。在一方面,弗洛伊德承认,他当时一定对于朵拉的勤勉视而不见,他才没有看见,她对他的认同,其实对可恨的K先生的认同。这激发起她想要报复的欲望。在另一方面,弗洛伊德冒险提出假设:他的技术性的错误当时一定是根源于他没有办法引导朵拉注意她的无意识的同性恋的爱,对于K太太。无论弗洛伊德的错误的特性是什么,朵拉的移情,并没有触发一个没有终止的精神分析的过程。而是激发她过早地结束这个治疗。

Years later, Freud applied what he had learnt from the Dora case in his
treatment of another eighteen-year-old girl (Freud 1920a). Like Dora, this
girl had expressed a desire to kill herself. Much like Dora’s, her parents
had become so upset with her demeanour that they decided to seek Freud’s
help. And in keeping with Dora’s erotic interest, albeit more overtly, this
girl’s homosexual orientation underpinned many of her symptoms. When
the girl produced a series of dreams in which she featured as a happily
married mother, Freud declared that she merely wanted to deceive him, in
line with her long-established habit of betraying her father.

几年以后,弗洛伊德运用他从朵拉的个案学习到的东西,远用到他对另外一位十八岁的女孩的治疗。就像朵拉,这位女孩曾经表达想要自杀的欲望。非常酷似朵拉,她的父母对于她的行为感到如此懊恼,所以他们决定寻求弗洛伊德的帮助。这位女孩的同性恋的定向,跟朵拉的性爱的興趣一样,虽然是更加明显,作为是许多她的症状的基础。当这位女孩产生一系列的梦。在梦里,她扮演一位快乐地结婚的母亲。弗洛伊德宣称,她仅是想要欺骗他,以符合她根深蒂固的习惯:背叛她的父亲。

Having
acknowledged the girl’s hostility towards her father and her concurrent
unconscious animosity towards himself as a father representative, Freud
subsequently ended the treatment on his own initiative, insisting that the
girl continue her analysis with a female analyst. By pinpointing the
deceitfulness of his patient’s productions and by effectively dropping his
patient before she had the opportunity to leave her analyst, Freud was
eager to avoid a retake of the Dora case. Yet once again the transference —
in this case an unconscious negative attitude towards the father—proved
decisive in light of the continuation of the analytic process.

弗洛伊德承认,这位女孩对于她的父亲具有敌意,同时对弗洛伊德自己作为父亲的代表,也无意识地具有敌意。弗洛伊德随后自己创议要结束这个治疗,他建议这位女孩应该找一位女性的分析家来继续她的精神分析。凭借有效地甩掉他的病人,在病人有机会离开她的分析家之前。弗洛伊德渴望避开朵拉个案的重演。可是,再一次,这个移情—在这个个案,对于父亲的无意识的负面的态度—证实是决定性关键,从精神分析过程的继续的观点。

A first conclusion to be drawn from Freud’s remarks on transference
is that its manifestation can lead to the analysis becoming either
unpursuable or interminable. Owing to this strong connection between
transference and the duration of psychoanalytic treatment, Lacan
proclaimed in Seminar I that ‘one can say that the transference is the
very concept of analysis, because it is the time of analysis’ (Lacan 1988b
[1953–54]:286).3

从弗洛伊德探讨移情的谈论能够被获得的最初的结论是,对于移情的展示会导致精神分析成为,要就是无法被追寻,要不就是没有终止。由于这个强烈的关联,处于移情与精神分析的治疗的期间,拉康在第一研讨班宣称:「我们能够说,移情就是精神分析的观念。因为移情就是精神分析的时间。」

Here the question emerges whether the analyst’s ‘management’ of
the transference or something in the nature of transference itself decides
over the continuation of the analytic process. Freud’s comments on his
technical mistakes in the Dora case strongly support the former option,
whereas his position in the treatment of the young homosexual woman
seems to endorse the latter. The same ambiguity pervades Freud’s
theoretical discussions of transference in his papers on technique and
the introductory lectures on psychoanalysis.

在此,这个问题出现,无论分析家的“管理移情”或某件事情,用移情本身的特性,是否决定,对于精神分析过程的继续。弗洛伊德的评论他的技术的错误,在朵拉的个案里,强烈地支持前者的选择。弗洛伊德的立场,在年轻同性恋的女人的治疗,似乎是证实后者:精神分析没有终止。相同的模糊嗳昧弥漫弗洛伊德的理论的讨论移情,在他探讨技术的论文与探讨精神分析的介绍性的演讲。

For example, in ‘The
Dynamics of Transference’ he noted: ‘Where the capacity for transference
has become essentially limited to a negative one, as is the case with
paranoiacs, there ceases to be any possibility of influence or cure’ (Freud
1912b:107). A different account, implicitly underscoring the analyst’s
power over the transference, appeared in the paper on transference-love:
‘No doctor who experiences this [the patient’s falling in love] for the
first time will find it easy to retain his grasp on the analytic situation and
to keep clear of the illusion that the treatment is really at an end’ (Freud
1915a[1914]:162, italics added).

譬如,在“移情的动力学”,他注意到:「当移情的能力已经变成基本上被限制于负面的移情。如同偏执狂的个案,那影响与治疗的任何可能性都停止存在」。一个不同的描述,暗示地强调分析家的移情的力量,出现在探讨“移情与爱”的论文:「当医生首次经验到这个移情与爱(病人的爱恋),他将会很容易保留他的理解,针对精神分析的情境,并且避开这个幻觉:治疗确实结束了」。

It seems that for Freud the clue to the entire question lay in the
differential faces of the transference. The mild positive, conscious face
of transference is beneficial for the continuation of analysis, whereas its
resistance face, epitomized by the analy sand’s unconscious negative,
hostile or intensely erotic feelings towards the analyst, is a recipe for
disaster, unless the analyst manages to explain their infantile origin to
the analysand (Freud 1916–17a[1915–17]:444; 1940a[1938]:174–177).

似乎,对于弗洛伊德,整个的问题的线索就在于移情具有不同的面貌。移情的温和,积极,有意识的脸孔是有利益的,对于精神分析的继续。另一方面,对于移情的抗拒的脸孔,由分析者的无意识的负面,敌意,或强烈性爱的感觉,朝向分析家,可看出轮廓。移情的抗拒的脸孔是形成灾难的要素。处非分析家成功地解释这些负面的移情起源于分析者的婴孩时期。

Because he regarded the analy sand’s feelings in the (hostile or erotic)
transference as a blueprint of a repressed unconscious pattern (Freud
1910a[1909]:50–51), Freud defined the analyst’s task accordingly as
overcoming the aspect of repetition controlling the transference and
opening the psychic avenues of remembering (Freud 1926e:226–228).4
In his re-reading of Freud’s technical papers during the early 1950s,
Lacan progressively exchanged the two constitutive axes (positive,
negative vs. conscious, unconscious) of Freud’s taxonomy of transference
for a structural classification embedded in his own distinction between
the imaginary and the symbolic (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:284).

因为分析家将分析者在敌意或性爱的移情里的感觉,作为是被压抑的无意识的模式的蓝图。弗洛伊德定义分析家的工作,因此作为是克服重复的面向,控制移情与展开记忆的心灵的管道。当拉康重新阅读弗洛伊德的技术的论文,在1950年代期间,拉康逐渐交换这两个组成的枢纽,(积极,负面,对抗意识,无意识),这是弗洛伊德的移情的术语。拉康将它转换成我结构的分类,镶嵌于他自己的区别,处于想像界与象征界之间。
In
emphasizing the imaginary and symbolic dimensions of transference
Lacan at once endeavoured to solve the Freudian riddle why transference
is simultaneously the engine of psychoanalytic treatment and the strongest
weapon of resistance (ibid.: 284). To Lacan this clinical puzzle could
not be brought to a satisfactory conclusion by merely relying on the
faces of transference; it required entering into the dialectics of the
imaginary and the symbolic.

当拉康强调移情的想像与象征的维度,他立即尝试解决弗洛伊德的谜团: 为什么移情同时是精神分析治疗的引擎。而且是最强烈的抗拒的武器。对于拉康,这个临床的谜团无法被带到令人满意的结论,凭借仅是依靠移情的脸孔。它要求进入想像界与象征界的辩证法。

Consequently, whereas Freud had predicated
the continuation of analysis on the analyst’s ability to handle the
inherently detrimental faces of transference by exposing their roots in a
repressed, infantile conflict, Lacan emphasized that the analyst’s duty
consisted in guaranteeing that the transference does not disintegrate into
an imaginary relationship of jealousy, rivalry and competition. At the
same time Lacan did not discard the qualities of love and hate within the
transference. On the contrary, he argued that love and hate are the two
central constituents of both symbolic and imaginary transference, with
the caveat that they cannot operate without an additional, generally
neglected factor of ignorance

结果,弗洛伊德曾经描述精神分析的继续,根据分析家的能力,处理本质上具有伤害性的移情的脸孔,凭借揭露他们在被压抑的,婴孩的冲突里的根源。拉康强调,分析家的责任在于保证:移情没有瓦解成为想像的妒忌,敌意,与競争的关系。同时,拉康并没有抛弃在移情里,爱与恨的各种特质。相反地,他主张,爱与恨都是象征界与想像界的两个中心的组成成分。具有这个警示:每当爱与恨运作时,总是会有一个额外,通常被忽略的无知的因素。

Apart from the question as to how transference influences the
continuation of analysis (with respect to its differential form or in keeping
with the analyst’s handling of it), Freud was also intrigued by the origin
of transference. Is it a phenomenon elicited by the conditions of
psychoanalytic treatment or something proceeding from a natural
disposition in neurotic people? If it is triggered by psychoanalysis itself,
should it be attributed to the person of the analyst or to the singularity of
the analytic procedures? And if it can be explained through the analytic
procedures, which of its components are most significant?

除了这个问题,关于移情如何影响精神分析的继续,(关于它的差异的形式或为了符合分析家对它的处理)。弗洛伊德也被移情的起源所著迷。移情的现象是由于精神分析的治疗的情况所召唤?或是某件从神经症人们身上的自然的性情,继续下来。假如移情是受的精神分析本身的触发,它难道应该被归属于分析家这个人?或是应该被归属于精神分析的程序的独异性?假如移情能够被解释,通过精神分析的程序,那么,移情的成分里,哪一个最重要?

Freud broached these questions in many of his writings without
formulating consistent answers.5 In the Dora case he championed the
view that transference is ‘an inevitable necessity’, not created by
psychoanalysis but merely brought to light as part of the analytic
revelation of the patient’s unconscious tendencies (Freud
1905e[1901]:116–117).

弗洛伊德碰触这些•问题,在许多他的著作里,但是他没有铨释一贯的答案。在朵拉的个案,他扞卫这个观点:移情是一个“无可避免的必要性”,移情并不是被精神分析所创造。而仅是被启蒙,作为是病人的无意识的倾向的精神分析的启示部分。

He rehearsed this view in ‘The Dynamics of
Transference’, at once challenging the idea that transference is an
exclusively psychoanalytic phenomenon (Freud 1912b:101). Yet soon
after, in his essay on transference love, Freud balanced towards the other
alternative: ‘He [the analyst] must recognize that the patient’s falling in
love is induced by the analytic situation and is not to be attributed to the
charms of his own person’ (Freud 1915a[1914]: 160–161).

他排演这个观点,在“移情的动力学”,他立即挑战这个观念:移情是一个专门的精神分析的现象。可是,不久之后,在他的探讨移情的爱的论文,弗洛伊德的平衡朝向另外一个替代选择:分析家必须体认到,病人的掉入恋爱,是由于精神分析的情境所诱导,并且不能被归属于他自己的人格的魅力。

But the
explanation Freud had given in the Dora case resurfaced in his
‘Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis’: ‘[W]e must… recognize
that we are dealing with a phenomenon which is intimately bound up
with the nature of the illness itself…[W]e do not believe that the situation
in the treatment could justify the development of such feelings’, although
‘the opportunity offered by the analytic treatment’ enables the patient to
transfer these feelings onto the analyst (Freud 1916–17a[1915–17]:442).

但是,弗洛伊德在朵拉的个案里,给出的这个解释,重新出现在他的“精神分析的导论“:「我们必须体认到,我们正在处理一个现象,跟疾病的本身的特性息息相关的现象。我们并没有相信,在治疗的情境能够证实这些感觉的发展的正当性。虽然精神分析治疗提供的机会,让病人能够转移这些感觉,到分析家身上。

Compared to Freud’s, Lacan’s take on the source of transference was
at the same time less ambiguous and more radical. Reassessing Freud’s
conduct in the Dora case, Lacan averred that transference—here to be
understood in its pernicious, imaginary side—‘always has the same
direction, of indicating the moments of error and orientation of the
analyst’ (Lacan 1982a[1951]:72, translation modified).

跟弗洛伊德的观点比较起来,拉康对于移情来源的看法,既是比较不那么模糊,也更加积进。拉康确信弗洛伊德在朵拉个案的行为,他主张说:移情—在此应该被理解,用它有害的想像的面向—移情总是拥有相同的方向,移情具有害的想像的面向:指示著错误的时刻与分析家的定向。

Subsequently,
he also held the analyst to play a crucial part in the emergence of the
symbolic transference, not simply by allowing the analysand to mistake
him for somebody else, nor by introducing the rule of free association,
but by embodying the function of supposed subject of knowing.

随后,拉康也认为分析家应该扮演一个重要的角色,在象征的移情的出现。不仅是凭借承认分析者将他错认为某个其他的人。也不是介质自由联想的规则的这个观念。而且凭借具体表现被认为应该知道的主体的功能。

Repudiating the idea that transference is the spontaneous outcome of a
presumed neurotic disposition, Lacan thus argued that it is evoked by
the analytic setting, notably by the analyst’s own implication.6
Since the analyst is de facto implied in the transference, whatever its
form and structure, Lacan went on to state that countertransference is not
an analytic evil, but a necessary counterpart of the analysand’s transference
(Lacan 1991b[1960–61]:233).

因为拉康排斥这个观念:移情是被认为是神经症的性情的自动自发的结果。拉康因此主张,移情由分析家的背景所召唤。特别是分析家自己的暗示。因为分析家实际上在移情里被暗杀,无论它的形式与结构是什么,拉康继续陈述:反-移情并不是分析家的邪恶,而是分析者的移情的必要的对应物。

On Lacan’s account, the notion of
countertransference ought not be employed as an umbrella for the analyst’s
technical failures, but as a concept conveying the unavoidable implication
of the analyst in the analysand’s transference.7 Instead of assigning the
transference to the quirks of the neurotic condition or to the artificiality of
the analytic setting, Lacan defended the analyst’s responsibility within the
entire process, eventually summarizing his point provocatively in the
formula that there is only one transference in psychoanalysis, namely that
of the analyst (Lacan 1973–74: session of 19 March 1974).

因为拉康的缘故,反-移情不应该被运用,作为是分析家的技术的失败,而是作为一个观念,传递无法分析家的避免的暗示,在分析者的移情里。拉康并没有将移情指定给神经症的情况的诡计,或是归属于精神分析的人为的背景。拉康辩护分析家的责任,在整个的过程,最后他挑衅地总结他的观点,在这个公式里:在精神分析里,仅有一个移情。换句话说,分析家的移情。

The analyst’s essential share in the analysand’s transference also
emboldened Lacan during the early 1960s to reject Freud’s frequent
alignment of transference and repetition.8 Although he himself had
supported this equivalence during the 1950s, Lacan gradually realized
that seeing transference as a pure repetition of an ancient, repressed
infantile conflict, i.e. as something completely alien to the analyst’s
position, not only reduced the analyst’s responsibility for the direction
of the treatment, but also restricted her capacity for manipulating the
transference (Lacan 1962–63: session of 9 January 1963). As I will
demonstrate in the succeeding sections of this chapter, this inevitable
implication of the analyst in the analysand’s transference was not the
only factor motivating Lacan’s separation of transference and repetition,
but it was definitely the most clinically informed one.

分析家基本上分享分享者的移情,在1960年代期间,让拉康大胆地排斥弗洛伊德的经常地将移情与重复等同一块。虽然拉康自己做1950年代,曾经支持这种等同。拉康逐渐地体会到:将移情视为是纯粹地重复的旧时的被压抑的婴孩的冲突,譬如,作为是某件完全外在于分析家的立场。这不但将分析家的责任化简成为治疗的方向,而且限制分析家的能力,作为操控移情的能力。如同我将会证实的,在这个章节的接续的部分,分析家的这个无可避免的暗示,并不是唯一的因素,引起拉康的动机,将移情与重复分开。但是,这确实是最为临床的资讯的因素。

Thus far I have presented two series of questions emanating from
Freud’s scattered glosses on transference: ‘How does transference affect
the continuation (the time) of psychoanalytic treatment?’, and ‘Where
does transference stem from?’. A third, even more contentious issue can
be added to this list, that hinges on the differentiation of transference
and suggestion.

直到现在,我已经呈现两个系列的问题,从弗洛伊德的探讨移情的散开的文章:「移情如何影响精神分析治疗的继续时间?“与“移情从何产生?”第三个议题具有争议性,能够被增加到这个名单,这个议题跟移情与暗示的差异连接一块。

If the analysand’s mild positive transference constitutes
a guarantee for psychoanalytic success (at least in Freud’s conception of
the treatment), how can the effects of psychoanalysis be distinguished
from those obtained by suggestion within traditional forms of hypnosis
and other healing practices? And if analysts are supposed to take
advantage of the analysand’s mild positive transference, curbing all its
complementary forms of expression, in order to obtain the desired results,
to what extent do they act upon a position of power and what prevents
them from abusing the power relegated to them?

假如分析者的温和的正面的移情组成精神分析成功的保障,(至少在弗洛伊德的治疗的观念),精神分析的影响如何能够被区别,跟那些凭借暗示获得的区别,在传统的催眠的形式,与其他的治疗的实践?假如分析家被认为利用分析者的温和的正面的移情,控制所有它的辅助的表达的形式,为了获得渴望的结果。他们根据权力的立场行动,到什么程度?是什么阻止他们不会滥用分配给与他们的权力?

In ‘The Dynamics of Transference’ Freud did not eschew the proposition
that ‘the results of psychoanalysis rest upon suggestion’, if suggestion
means that one person is being influenced by another (Freud 1912b:106).

在“移情的动力学”,弗洛伊德并没有避开这个命题:「精神分析的结果依靠暗示“。假如暗示意味在,一个人正在被另外一个影响。

Developing this point further in his ‘Introductory Lectures on Psycho-
Analysis’, he impressed on his audience that a patient’s ‘tendency to
transference’ (Ubertragungsneigung) is synonymous with Bernheim’s
notion of suggestibility if only its realm of action is extended to include
negative feelings, and provided one is prepared to acknowledge the libidinal
engine of this suggestibility (Freud 1916–17a[1915–17]:446).9 Faced with
the objection that this inextricable link between transference and suggestion
undermines the originality of the psychoanalytic edifice and might
contribute to its deterioration, Freud subsequently nuanced his opinion,
drawing attention to a dual gulf separating direct hypnotic and
psychoanalytic suggestion.

拉康更进一步发展这一点,在他的”论精神分析的导论“。他给予他的听众这个印象: 病人的倾向于移情,等于是同义词,跟伯罕姆的暗示的观念,只是它的行动的领域被延伸到包含负面的感觉。只要我们准备承认这个暗示的力比多的引擎。当弗洛伊德面临这个反对意见:移情与暗示之间的这个可以挣脱的联结,逐渐损坏精神分析技术的原创性,并且可能促成它的恶化。弗洛伊德随后更详细说明这个意见,提醒注意有一个双重鸿沟,将直接的催眠与精神分析的暗示区分开。

First of all he claimed that contrary to hypnotic
procedures, the analytic modus operandi is not geared towards covering
up the patient’s problems with additional layers of mental strength, even
less towards the prohibition of symptoms. Instead it seeks to rid the
analysands of their symptoms by exposing their underlying conflicts (ibid.:
450–451).10 Second, and more importantly, Freud stressed that whatever
remains of the suggestive influence of the analyst’s interventions is bound
to perish under the weight of analysis itself: ‘In every other kind of
suggestive treatment the transference is carefully preserved and left
untouched; in analysis it is itself subjected to treatment and is dissected in
all the shapes in which it appears’ (ibid.: 453).

首先,他宣称,跟催眠的程序恰恰相反,分析的运作模式被启动,并不是朝向掩盖病人的难题,用额外的精神的力量的层级。甚至不是朝着症状的禁止。代替的,精神分析的运作模式尝试替分析者废除掉他们的症状,凭借揭露他们的作为基础的冲突。其次,而且更加重要地,弗洛伊德强调:任何分析家的介入的暗示的影响,所剩的东西,被发现会在精神分析本身的压力下消灭。「在每一种其他的暗示的治疗里,移情仔细被保留,并且被保存完整。在精神分析,移情本身隶属于治疗,而且被解剖,在它出现的各种形状里。

Not convinced by Freud’s arguments, Lacan remained adamant that
transference and suggestion ought to be kept separate if the analyst is to
steer away from a surreptitious abuse of power.11 In his Seminar V he
pointed out that analysts have an ever-looming suggestive influence over
their patients by virtue of their transference, which is being abused
whenever they take advantage of it, whether to satisfy their patients’
demands, to force an interpretation, or to present themselves as reliable,
competent analysts with whom it is worth identifying (Lacan 1998b
[1957–58]:427–428).

由于拉康并不相信弗洛伊德的论点,拉康始终态度坚定:移情与暗示应该被保持分开。假如分析家想要避免权力的秘密滥用。在他的第四研讨班,拉康指出,分析家拥有越来越明显的暗示的影响,对于他们的病人,凭借病人的移情。病人的移情正在被滥用,每当他们利用它。无论是满足他们的病人的要求,强迫给予解释,或呈现他们自己作为可靠,胜任的分析家。认同这些分析家是值得的。

Of course, the upshot of Lacan’s idea was that
psychoanalytic interventions which do not encompass an element of
suggestion are extremely difficult to define, especially when taking into
account that the analysts’ mere presence could be regarded as a suggestive
fulfilment of the analysands’ demand that they be there. Lacan tried to
escape this clinical impasse for each of the three levels in his schema of
the direction of the treatment: the politics of the analyst, the strategies of
transference and the tactics of interpretation (Lacan 1977i[1958]).12

当然,拉康的观念的结果是,精神分析的介入,并没有涵盖暗示的元素。这种介入是极端难以定义。特别是当我们考虑到,光是精神分析家的存在,就能够被认为是分析者的要求的暗示的满足:分析家应该在那里。拉康尝试逃避这种临床的僵局,因为这三个层次的每一个,在他的治疗的方向的基模里:分析家的政治学,移情的策略,与解释的技术。

First, as I have explained in the previous chapter, he intimated that
the analyst’s position must be characterized both by the death of the ego
and the disbeing of the object a. Second, with respect to the contents of
an interpretation, Lacan replaced the analyst’s mandatory full speech
with the essential ambiguity and nonsensicality of his expressions.13
Finally, on the level of transference, he exposed the widespread analytic
practice of interpreting the transference, whereby its infantile sources
are revealed to the analysand, as a vicious circle:

首先,如同我曾经解释,在先前一章。拉康主张,分析家的立场的特征,必然是自我的死亡与小客体的没有生命实存。其次,关于解释的内容,拉康取代分析家的义务的充分的言说,带有基本的模糊与他的表达的非理解性质。最后,在移情的层次,拉康揭露广泛的精神分析的解释移情的实践。凭借移情,移情的婴孩的来源被揭示给分析者,反过来说,也是一样。

[T]his interpretation, if he [the analyst] gives it, will be received as
coming from the person that the transference imputes him to be. Will
he [the analyst] agree to benefit from this error concerning his person?
Analytic morals do not contradict this, on condition that the
analyst interprets this effect, otherwise the analysis will
amount to little more than a crude suggestion. An
incontestable option, except that the analyst’s words will still
be heard as coming from the Other of the transference, the
subject’s way out of the transference thus being postponed
ad infinitum.
(ibid.: 231, translation modified)

假如分析家给予这个解释,它将会被接收,作为是来自移情灌输给他要成为的那个人。关于这个人,他将会同意从这个错误里获得利益吗?精神分析的道德并没有反驳这一点,只有分析家解释这个效果。否则,精神分析将会等于是仅是粗略的暗示。这个一个无可争议的选择,除了就是,分析家的话语将依旧会被听见,当著是从移情的大他者而来。主体的避开移情的途径因此无限地被拖延。

Transcending the inappropriate, inherently suggestive interpretation of
the transference, Lacan ensuingly deployed the principles of a genuine
analysis of and interpretation within the transference, predicated on its
calculated manipulation by the analyst in light of the downfall of the
supposed subject of knowing (Lacan 1967–68: session of 10 January
1968).

拉康超越这个不合适,本质上具有暗示的移情的解释。他随后运用“移情的真诚的精神分析的原则与移情之内的解释”,并且根据分析家对于移情的审慎的操控作为陈述,从作为应该知道的主体的沦落为分析者欲望的客体的原因的观点。

The above three issues, which cover the relationship between
transference and the continuation of the treatment, the origin of
transference, and the relation between transference and suggestion, arise
from three clinical problems in Freud’s oeuvre and represent three central
concerns within Lacan’s theory of transference. Although continuously
in touch with the letter of Freud’s writings, Lacan sought to advance the
founder’s theory of transference by reformulating these problems and
introducing new concepts.

以上的三个议题涵盖移情与治疗的继续之间,移情的起源,移情与暗示之间的关系。这三个议题的产生,是因为三个临床的难题,在弗洛伊德的著作里。它们代表三个中心的关注,在拉康的移情的理论。虽然拉康继续跟弗洛伊德的著作的信息保存联络,他尝试提升这位创办者的移情的理论,凭借重新阐释这些难题,并且介绍新的观念。

In the following sections of this chapter I will
detail these reformulations and new concepts, mapping the evolution of
Lacan’s own views between the early 1950s and the late 1960s, when
his exploration of transference reached its zenith.14 In this way, I hope to
show that Lacan’s theory of transference is neither ‘characterized by
obscurity and linguistic play’, nor ‘leaves one uncertain as to his actual
technical approach’ (Esman 1990:12).

在这个章节的随后的部分,我将详细列出这些重新的阐释与新的观念。并且描绘出拉康自己的观点的进化,在1950年代早期跟1960年代晚期。当时,拉康的对于移情的探索登峰造极。用这个方式,我希望显示:拉康的移情的理论,既不是以模糊嗳昧与语言的游戏作为特征,也不是让我们狐疑不定,关于他实际的技术的方法。

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: