从移情到互为主体性

FROM PSYCHOLOGY TO INTERSUBJECTIVITY
从心理学到互为主体性

Lacan’s first extensive protocol on the topic of transference, his 1951
‘Intervention on Transference’, took off from yet another trenchant
critique of mainstream psychoanalysis. Now the unfortunate bugbear
was called Daniel Lagache, an analyst who unlike many of Lacan’s future
adversaries was more drawn to the scientific ideals of academic
psychology than the therapeutic ambitions of ego-psychology.15

拉康的首次的广泛的模式,探讨移情的主题,他在1961年的“论移情的介入’, 出发点是从另外一个猛烈的批判主流的精神分析。现在,这位不幸的怪物被称为丹尼尔 拉噶奇。这位精神分析家不像许多拉康的未来的敌人,他被吸引到学院派的科学的理想,而不是自我-心理学的治疗的企图心。

Echoing a criticism by Maurice Benassy on the encyclopaedic position
paper on transference Lagache had prepared for a 1951 conference, Lacan
developed a vehement rebuttal of Lagache’s explanation of the repetitive
nature of transference via the so-called Zeigarnik effect.16

拉康回应本拿西从百科全书的立场探讨移情的批评,那是拉噶奇替1951年准备的论文。拉康发展猛烈的反驳,针对拉噶奇的解释移情的重复的特性,经由所谓的哲噶米克的效应。

According to
this effect, originally described in 1927 by Bela Zeigarnik, an associate of
the cognitive learning theorist Kurt Lewin, incomplete tasks are more likely
to stay in people’s minds than properly resolved ones.17

依照这个效应,哲噶米克在1927年最初描述的效应。他哲噶米克斯认知学习的理论家科克 列文的助理:没有完成的工作,更加有可能保持在人们的心里,比起合适被解决的工作。

Taking his lead
from a book by Maslow and Mittelmann (1951[1941]:66), Lagache had
claimed that it is easy to put Zeigarnik’s incomplete tasks on a par with the
unresolved infantile conflicts and the thwarted wishes in the mental life of
neurotics, which could elucidate the spring of Freud’s unconscious
repetition compulsion and its ruling over the analysand’s transference.18

拉噶奇从马斯洛与米腾曼的书作为开始,他宣称:我们很容易将哲噶米克的“没有完成的工作,能够相提并论,跟没有被解决的婴孩的冲突,以及遭受挫折的愿望,在神经者的精神生活里。这个宣称可以用来阐释弗洛伊德的无意识的重复的冲动的泉源,以及无意识的重复的冲动对于分析者的移情的统辖。

In his reply, Lacan followed Benassy’s argument that instead of
repetition and transference being determined by the Zeigarnik effect,
matters might very well be the other way round, the Zeigarnik effect
depending on the nature of the transference between the experimenter
and the participants.

在他的回应里,拉康遵循本拿西的论点:重复与移情并没有受的哲噶米克的效应所决定。事情很有可能恰恰相反。哲噶米克的效应依靠处于试验者与参与者之间的移情的特性。

Whereas Benassy had illustrated his point in
reference to the conditions of psychometric testing, Lacan applied it
directly to the psychoanalytic setting, saying that ‘it proceeds entirely in
this relationship of subject to subject, which means that it preserves a
dimension which is irreducible to all psychology considered as the
objectification of certain properties of the individual’ (Lacan
1982a[1951]:62). All individual reactions, Lacan posited, are governed
by the primacy of an intersubjective relationship, which implies that
transference can only be explained through the dialectical process
between the analysand and the analyst.19

虽然本拿西说明他的观的,提的心理量尺的测试的条件。拉康则是将它直接运用到精神分析的背景。拉康并且说,「心理量尺的测试的进行,完全是在主体与主体之间的关系里。这意味着,它保存一个无法被化简的维度,无法被化简成为是被认为是客体化的所有的心理学,个人的某些属性被客体化。拉康提出,所有的个人的反应动作,受到互为主体性的关系的原初地位所统辖。这暗示着,移情能够被解释,仅是凭借分析者与分析家之间的辩证的过程。

So how does the analyst play a part in the emergence of the analysand’s
transference? Three years before his ‘Intervention on Transference’, in
‘Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis’, Lacan had implicitly espoused Freud’s
recommendation that the analyst ‘should be opaque to his patients and,
like a mirror, should show them nothing but what is shown to him’ (Freud
1912e:118). Lacan emphasized that the analyst’s attitude of general
impassibility is exactly what facilitates the beneficial reactivation of
unconscious ‘archaic images’ in the analysand (Lacan 1977d[1948]: 13–
15).

所以,分析家如何扮演一个角色,在分析者的移情的出现?在“论移情的介入”的前三年,在“精神分析的侵凌性”,拉康曾经含蓄地说明弗洛伊德的建议:「分析家应该对他的病人保持模糊。就像是一面镜子,分析家应该跟病人显示,仅是被显示给他的东西。」拉康强调,分析家对于通常无法跨越的态度,确实就是让分析者身上,无意识的“旧时的意象”,方便从事有利的重新触动的因素。

He even embraced Melanie Klein’s theory of the paranoiac’s projection
of bad internal objects onto the outside world, in order to argue that the
opaque psychoanalyst induces a state of controlled paranoia in the
analysand (ibid.: 15).

他甚至接受米兰 克来恩的理论:妄想症者的投射坏的内部的客体,到外在的世界。为了主张,模糊嗳昧的精神分析家在分析者身上,引导出受控制的妄想症的状态。

Whilst Lacan’s account of transference in this early
paper did not attain the high level of sophistication characteristic of his
later work, its central message that the analyst’s controlled inertia within
the treatment determines the analysand’s transference would resound for
years to come.20 Furthermore, Lacan maintained that when the analysand’s
transference turns into an unmanageable aggressive tension, the analyst is
as much responsible for these deleterious developments as for the initial
emergence of transference.

在这篇早期的论文,拉康描述移情,并没有获得他晚期著作的精致的特性。它的主心的讯息是:在治疗内部,分析家的受控制的惰性,分析者的移情将会迴响在未来的好几年。而且,拉康主张,当分析者的移情转变成为一个无法管理的侵凌性的紧张,分析家负同样的责任,对于这个巧妙的发展,如同负责移情的惰性的出现。

These negative reactions only occur when an
analyst exchanges his ‘pure mirror of an unruffled surface’ (ibid.: 15) for
admonitions curtailing the analysand’s wishes or interventions saturated
with good advice (presumably with the best of philanthropic intentions).
In his ‘Intervention on Transference’, Lacan took advantage of Freud’s
trouble with Dora to illustrate how the girl’s negative transference had
indeed taken shape in accordance with Freud’s own clinical conduct,
confirming the assertion that transference follows a dialectics of
intersubjectivity:

这些负面的反应动作会发生,仅是当分析家用他的“纯粹的反映安详的表面”,交换这些预警,缩短分析者的愿望的预警•或是充满善意劝告的介入(被假定是带着最善意的慈善的意图)。在他的“论移情的介入“,拉康利用弗洛伊德的朵拉个案的困扰,来阐述这位女孩的负面的移情,确实是遵照弗洛伊德的自己的临床的行为而成形。拉康证实这个主张:移情遵循互为主体性的辩证法。

[T]he case of Dora, because of what it stands for in the experience
of transference when this experience was still new…[was] the first
case in which Freud recognised that the analyst played his part…
I will be attempting to define in terms of pure dialectics the
transference, which we call negative on the part of the subject as
being the operation of the analyst who interprets it.
(Lacan 1982a[1951]:64–65)

因为朵拉的个案所代表的东西,在移情的经验里,当这个经验当时还是新出现。它是第一个个案,弗洛伊德在那里体认:分析家扮演他的角色、、、我将企图用纯粹的辩证法的术语,来定义移情。我们称为负面的移情,在主体这方面,作为是解释它的分析及的运作。

Restructuring Freud’s entire case around a series of dialectical reversals
and subsequent developments of subjective truth, Lacan ascribed Dora’s
negative transference, which triggered her departure, to Freud’s failure
to implement one crucial reversal. Freud had refrained from showing to
Dora that she was not interested in Mrs K because the woman was her
closest rival, but because she incarnated the mystery of femininity.21 Put
differently, Lacan could only see one reason behind Freud’s downfall:
Mr K must have inspired in the young girl that he could not understand
her love for Mrs K. At the time, Lacan designated Freud’s fixation as
countertransference, ‘the sum total of the prejudices, passions and
difficulties of the analyst, or even of his insufficient information, at any
given moment of the dialectical process’ (ibid.: 71).22
the father of psychoanalysis had been so fixated on the love he believed

当拉康重新建构弗洛伊德的整个的个案,环绕一系列的辩证法的逆转,与主体的真理的随后的发展,他将朵拉的负面的移情归咎于弗洛伊德没有运作一个关键的逆转,因为这个负面的移情触发朵拉的离去。弗洛伊德自我节制,没有对朵拉显露:她对K夫人感到興趣,不是因为那个女人是她最靠近的情敌,而且因为她具体表现女性的神秘。换句话说,拉康仅是看见弗洛伊德的掉落情网的一个理由:K先生当时一定曾经在这位女孩身上启发,他无法理解她对K夫人的爱。在当时,拉康指明弗洛伊德的固著,作为是反-移情,「分析家的各种偏见,激情与困难的总数,或甚至是分析家的不充足的资讯的总数,在这个辩证法的过程的任何特定的时刻」。弗洛伊德作为精神分析之父对于他相信的爱,曾经是如此固著。

He concluded accordingly that ‘transference does not arise from any mysterious property
of affectivity’, but always reflects the analyst’s own position (ibid.: 71).
Having situated transference firmly within psychoanalytic
intersubjectivity, Lacan probed deeper into the phenomenology of
transference with the goal of formulating a more fundamental set of
alternatives than the classic Freudian opposition between an
advantageous, mild positive transference and its infelicitous (erotic or
aggressive) counterpart. The upshot was a clear theoretical distinction
between imaginary and symbolic transference, each incorporating all
possible shades of the entire affective spectrum.

拉康因此下结论:「移情并非产生于情感的任何的神秘的属性。代替的,移情总是反映出分析者自己的立场」。当拉康将移情坚固地定位在精神分析的互为主体性的内部,他更加深入地探索移情的现象,目标朝着阐述一个更加基本的替代选择,比起古典的弗洛伊德的对立,处于有利的,温和的,正面的移情,与不利的侵凌性的负面移情。结局是清楚的理论的区别,想像与象征的移情。每一种都合并整个的情感的光谱的一切可能的色度。

In Seminar I Lacan tabulated symbolic transference as the efficacious
side of the coin, identifying it quite simply with the act of full speech:
‘Each time a man speaks to another in an authentic and full manner,
there is, in the true sense, transference, symbolic transference—something
takes place which changes the nature of the two beings present’ (Lacan
1988b[1953–54]:109).

在第一研讨班,拉康塑造象征的移情,作为是硬币的有效的一面,将它仅是认同于充分言说的行为。「每次一个人跟另外一个人言说,以真诚而充实的方式,就真实的意义而言,就存在着移情,象征的移情—某件东西发生,改变这俩个在场的人物的天性」。

On this symbolic plane, transference operates as
the motor of analysis and it can take either the form of love or hate, and
quite possibly a mixture of both.23 To corroborate the idea that transference
is inextricably linked with the symbolic structure of language, he referred
to Freud’s description of ‘the fact of transference’ in the final chapter of
The Interpretation of Dreams, where he had associated it with the
transmission of energy from an unconscious representation to a
preconscious day’s residue (Freud 1900a:562–563).24 Here, Lacan
stipulated, Freud had explained how transference takes place when a
forbidden unconscious discourse takes hold of a more accessible,
preconscious discourse in order to express itself (Lacan 1988b[1953–
54]:247).

在象征的层面,移情运作,作为精力分析的马达。它要就是採用爱的形式,要不就是採用恨的形式。相当可能的是,採有爱与恨两这混合。为了建构这个观念:移情无法挣脱地跟语言的象征结构息息相关,拉康参照弗洛伊德的描述“移情的事实”,在“梦的解释的最后的章节”。在那里,弗洛伊德将移情跟精力的传递联想一块,从无意识的再现,到前意识的白天的残渣。在此,拉康提出旦书:无意识的辞说掌控更加可以靠近,前意识的辞说,为了表达它自己。

What Lacan dubbed ‘imaginary transference’ coincides with the type
of transference Freud had encountered as an obstacle to the treatment,
with the proviso that Lacan put its dialectical rather than its affective
qualities centre stage. Analysands who are under the spell of an imaginary
transference only approach their analyst as an alter ego, an other who
presents a mirror image of themselves.

拉康所谓的“想像的移情”,巧合于弗洛伊德曾经遭遇的移情的类型,作为是治疗的阻碍。有一个旦书是:拉康将移情的辩证的移情,而不是想像的移情,作为中心的舞台。受到想像的移情的影响之下的分析者,接近分析家,仅是作为他我,一位他者,呈现他们自己的镜子影像。

The love analysands experience
on this plane is strictly narcissistic. Not tolerating the other’s difference,
they only bring into relief those features which the other has in common
with themselves. Likewise, imaginary hate is not oriented towards
breaking a mutually agreed contract, but towards continuous rivalry,
competition and jealousy. Lacan contemplated the analysand’s projection
of archaic infantile images onto the analyst as a standard example of this
imaginary transference.

在这个层面,分析家经验到的爱严格来说是自恋的。他们并没有容忍他者的差异,他们仅是突显他者拥有跟他们自己共同的那些特征。同样地,想像的恨并没有被定向朝向违背互相被同意的契约,而是朝向继续的敌意,競争与妒忌。拉康沉思分析者的投射旧时的婴孩的意象,到分析家身上。作为是想像的移情的标准的例子。
And for all its prevalence within ego-psychology,
he considered it detrimental to the continuation of psychoanalysis:
To bring into play the illusory projection of any one of the subject’s
fundamental relations with the analytic partner, or again the object
relation, the relation between transference and counter-transference,
all this, remaining as it does within a two body psychology, is
inadequate.
(ibid.: 261)25

尽管在自我-心理学的内部,移情的胜行,拉康则是将移情认为是有伤害的,对于精神分析的继续。光是这样运作是不足够的:运作主体跟分析家作为伴侣的基本的关系的任何关系的幻想的投射,移情与反移情之间的关系,所有这一切关系,因为它始终保持在两个身体的心理学。

This claim is of course quite remarkable in light of Lacan’s previous
assessment of the transference in ‘Aggressivity in Psychoanalysis’. For
what had originally appeared as the essence of transference, namely the
reactualization of archaic images, now emerged as its evil underside—a
clinical avenue to be avoided rather than cleared.

这个宣称当然相当引人注意,从拉康的先前的评估移情,在“精神分析的侵凌性”。因为原先出现作为移情的本质,也就是,旧时的意象的重新触动,现在出现,作为它的邪恶的底层—这一个临床的途径应该被避免,而不是被清除。

The second nuance Lacan added to his initial picture of transference
relates to the power of analytic intersubjectivity for eliciting the
analysand’s reactions.

拉康增加第二次细微差别,到移情的这个最初的画面。他将移情跟精神分析的互为主体性的力量牵扯一块,作为召唤分析者的反应动作。

To the extent that transference operates according
to the criteria of full and empty speech, it is difficult to see how analysts,
simply by virtue of their acting as dark mirrors, would actually evoke
these responses. Lacan was forced to conclude from his own restructuring
of the transference phenomenon that ‘the dimension of transference exists
from the start, implicitly, well before analysis begins, before this
concubinage, which analysis is, triggers it’ (ibid.: 271). This perspective
was of course in keeping with Freud’s explanation of transference in the
Dora case—an inevitable necessity brought to light by the circumstances
of psychoanalytic treatment (Freud 1905e[1901]:116–117) —but it also
revived the spectre of the neurotic’s predisposition and the spontaneous
appearance of transference.

随着移情的运作,依照充分言说与空洞言说的标准,我们很困难看出,分析家如何实际上召唤这些反应,仅是凭借他们的行动,作为黑暗的镜子。拉康被迫下结论,根据他自己的重新架构移情现象:移情的维度从开始就存在,含蓄地存在,就在精神分析开始之前,就在这个非婚交媾之前,这就是精神分析的本质,精神分析触发它。这个观点当然符合弗洛伊德对于移情的解释,在朵拉的个案。一个无可避免的必要性,由精神分析的治疗的环境启明。但是它也重新复活神经症者的性情的魅影,与移情自动自发地出现。

Therefore Lacan hastened to specify that if
there is a ‘readiness to the transference’ in the patient ‘it is solely by
virtue of his placing himself in the position of acknowledging himself in
speech, and searching out his truth to the end, the end which is there, in
the analyst’ (Lacan 1988b[1953–54]:277–278).26 Although not
diminished, the analyst’s responsibility was consequently restricted to
the emergence of the analysand’s transference along one of the axes of
the symbolic-imaginary divide.27

因此,拉康匆匆指明:假如在病人身上,移情准备出现,那仅是凭借他将他自己放置在这个立场:用言说承认自己,并且彻底地寻找出他的真理,在分析家身上,存在在那里的目标。分析家的责任虽然没有被减少,结果却是被限制于分析者的移情的出现,沿着象征与想像的分界线的其中一个枢纽。

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: