超越移情的原则

BEYOND THE TRANSFERENCE PRINCIPLE
超越移情的原则

At the end of this chapter I feel obliged to say something about the
strategies of transference in psychotic and perverse patients, and their
proper management within the constraints of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
For the majority of the aforementioned conceptions apply to neurotic
(obsessional or hysterical) patients and cannot be extrapolated without
modification to other clinical structures. As I have already pointed out in
the two previous chapters, extensive theoretical discussion and concrete
technical advice on these matters must not be expected from the study of
Lacan’s works, the apparent standstill of his genius being even more
conspicuous in the playground of perversion than in the arena of
psychosis.

在这个章节的结束,我感觉有义务说某件事情,关于在精神病与倒错症的病人的移情的策略。以及他们的适当的治疗,在拉康的精神分析的约束之内的合适的管理。因为大多数以上提到的观念,适用于神经症者(妄想症或癔症)的病人。并且必须要有对于其他的临床的结构的修正,这些观念才能被列举。如同我已经指出,在这两个前述的章节,延伸的理论的讨论与对于这些事情的具体的技术的劝告,我们一定不要期望从拉康的著作的研究获得。他的天才的明星的停滞,甚至更加显而易见,在倒错症的游乐场域,比起在精神病的斗技场。

Scrutiny of Lacan’s Seminar III, The Psychoses (1993[1955–56]) and
its corollary, the ecrit ‘On a Question Preliminary to Any Possible Treatment
of Psychosis’ (1977h[1957–58]), suffices to observe his reluctance in
classifying the psychotic’s peculiar interactions with others as transference.
After having claimed in his ‘Rome Discourse’ (1977e[1953]:68) that the
psychotic’s freedom of speech, prevaricating recognition, poses an obstacle
to transference, Lacan described in Seminar III how Schreber’s paranoid
relations with all the masculine characters in his surroundings can be
regarded as transference, simultaneously indicating that the notion ‘is
undoubtedly not to be taken in quite the sense that we usually mean’ (Lacan
1993[1955–56]:31).

仔细审查拉康的第三研讨班,“精神病者”,以及它的发展的成果,“论文集”里的“精神病的可能治疗的基本问题”,我们充分观察到拉康很不愿意将精神病者跟别人的特殊的互动,归类作为移情。在他的“罗马辞说”,拉康曾经宣称,精神病的言说的自由,闪烁地难以体认,会形成移情的阻碍。拉康在第三研讨班描述,许瑞伯的妄想症他周遭环境的男性的人物的关系,能够被认为作为移情,同时又指示,这个观念无可置疑地不应该用我们通常的意涵看待。

Returning to the structure of Schreber’ s delusions at
the end of the seminar, he added that the disturbed relationships with others
within the delusional system are clearly connected to a transference
mechanism (ibid.: 310), which does not imply that the persecutory
relationships constitute a transference in themselves.63
Without resolving the issue Lacan simply referred to Schreber’s
‘delusional “transferences”’ [sic] in his seminal text on psychosis (Lacan
1977h[1957–58]:190), dismissing the bulk of the psychoanalytic
literature on transference and psychosis as an instance of the swiftness
with which ‘psychoanalysts claim to be able to cure psychosis in all
cases where a psychosis is not involved’ (ibid.: 192).64

在研讨班1的结束,当拉康回的许瑞伯的幻觉的结构时,他补充说,跟别人的受的困扰的关系,在妄想症的系统里,跟移情的机制确实明显地息息相关。这个移情的机制并没有暗示着,迫害的关系本身形成移情。拉康并没有解决这个问题,在他论精神病的研讨班的文本,他仅是提到许瑞伯的“幻觉的移情”。他将一大堆的精神分析论移情与精神病的文献,排斥作为是灵巧的例子。灵巧地,精神分宣称能够治疗精神病,在精神病其实并没有被牵涉在内的个案里。

At the very end of
his text, Lacan revealed that his preliminary question to any possible
treatment of psychosis introduced ‘the conception to be formed of the
handling, in this treatment, of the transference’, yet he refused to enter
that area of research because his aim had been to ‘return to’ and not to
go ‘beyond Freud’ (ibid.: 221). Lacan addressed the issue of psychosis
on a regular basis in later years, without gathering up the loose threads
of his previous explorations.

在他的文本的结束,拉康显示,他的最初的问题,针对任何可能的精神病的治疗,介绍即将被形成的观念,关于在这个治疗里的移情的处理。可是他拒绝进入这个研究的领域。因为他的目的一直是“回到”而不是去“超越弗洛伊德”。在晚年,规律地,拉康处理精神病的这个议题,但是,他并没有收集他先前的探索的松散的脉络。

The most oft-quoted and perhaps the only valuable statement on
psychosis and transference within Lacan’s later work is his 1966
introduction to the French translation of Schreber’s memoirs (Lacan
1996b[1966]).65 On a theoretical level Lacan instated a new opposition
between the subject that is represented by a signifier for another signifier,
i.e. the already conceptualized divided subject () of the unconscious,
and the subject of jouissance purportedly underpinning the structure of
paranoia (ibid.: 2).66

在拉康晚年的研究,最经常被引用,或许是唯一有价值的陈述,针对精神病与移情,是他1966年的介绍法文的翻译许瑞伯的回忆录。根据理论的层面,拉康开启一个新的对立,在被另外一个能指所代表的能指的主体,与欢爽的主体之间的对立。前者是无意识的已经被概念化的分裂的主体。后者是刻意作为妄想症者的结构的基础。

From a practical viewpoint he impelled
psychoanalysts working with psychotics to adapt themselves to a clinical
constellation which puts them ‘in the position of object of a sort of
mortifying erotomania’, similar to the place Schreber assigned to Flechsig
in his delusional constructions (ibid.: 4). The upshot of this constellation
would be that the psychoanalyst is not invested with a transference signifier supporting the supposed subject of knowing, but with an
imaginary ‘persona’ subjugated to the unsavoury intentions of an
infatuated stalker.

从实践的观点,拉康推动研究精神病者的精神分析适应临床的汇集,让精神病者处于某种令人羞辱的色情狂的客体的立场。类似于他的幻觉的建构里,许瑞伯指定给弗列西格的位置。这个汇集的结果将是,精神分析家并没有被投注赋有移情-能指,用来支持被认为是应该知道的主体。而是被投注赋有想像的“人格面具”,被隶属于著迷的潜行者的不良的意图。

142 Jacques Lacan and the Freudian practice of psychoanalysis
These scant indications conjure up the picture I outlined in the first
chapter of this book, of the psychotic patient whose lack of ignorance
excludes the supposed subject of knowing and prefigures a destructive,
competitive, imaginary bond. On the question of how to deal with this
type of transference, Lacanian psychoanalysts have formulated a plethora
of clinical guidelines, often based on what they have learnt from their
private experience with single case-studies. The following series of ideas
is a summary of what I consider to be the most important technical
features. The series does not pretend to be exhaustive, and clinicians are
encouraged to approach these ideas as recommendations and not as
established principles or hard-and-fast rules, in keeping with Freud’s
warning in the opening paragraphs of ‘On Beginning the Treatment’
(1913c:123).

这些有限的指示让人想起我在本书的第一章节描绘的画面。关于精神病的病人,他的无知的欠缺排除被认为应该知道的主体,并且预先构想一位毁灭的,競争的,想像的默契。针对这个问题:如何处理这种移情?拉康派的精神分析已经阐释临床的指导方针的丰富内容。这些指导方针的基础是他们已经学习到的东西,从他们对于单一的个案研究的私人经验。以下的观念的系列,就是我认为是最重要的专业技术的特征的总结。这个系列并没有伪装穷尽一切。临床医生被鼓励探讨这些观念,作为是1推荐,并且并不是作为被建立的原则,或牢不可破的规则。以符合弗洛伊德的警告,在“论治疗的开始”的开头的段落。

It is first of all believed that analysts run the risk of invigorating the
‘mortifying erotomania’ when helping to disclose the signification of
the psychotic’s experiences. Like Schreber, who suffered immensely from
the realization that ‘All nonsense cancels itself out’ (Schreber 1988
[1903]:151–152), psychotics are engulfed by the significance of their
condition, and do not benefit from people who question or solidify this
significance. More radically than in the case of neurotics, the analyst
ought to abstain from being a mind-reader or seer, because this position
consolidates the psychotic’s mental state and seriously jeopardizes the
analytic setting (Alquier et al. 1992:171). By contrast, analysts are held
to offer an address (Broca 1984:50), a stable place at which the psychotic
patient can call, and which they occupy in the function of secretaries or
witnesses of the psychotic’s experiences (Soler 1987).

人们起初相信,精神分析家冒着这个危险:激发这个“令人羞辱的色情狂”,当他们帮忙显露出精神病的经验的意义。就像许瑞伯,他遭受巨大痛苦,由于体会到,“一切的无意义取消它的本身”。精神病者被他们的情况的意义吞没,并且没有获得利益,从那些质疑或巩固这个意义的人们。比起神经症的个案更加强烈地,分析家应该自我节制,不要成为是阅读心术者,或是预言家。因为这个立场巩固精神病者的精神状态,并且严重地危害精神分析的背景。对照起来,精神分析家被认为要提供一个地址,一个稳定的位置,让精神病的病人能够拜访。他们占据这个位置,以秘书的功能,或是作为精神病这的经验的见证者。

Additionally Lacanian psychoanalysts have reached an agreement on
the importance of the clinician’s calculated restrictiveness with regard
to the psychotic’s intrusive jouissance. Because symbolic castration does
not operate in psychotic patients, jouissance has not been severed from
the Other (Miller 1993:11), which compels psychotics to an existence as
mere objects for the whimsical jouissance of the Other.

除外,拉康派的精神分析家已经达成一个共识,针对临床医生的被估算的限制的重要性,关于精神病的闯入的欢爽。因为象征的阉割并没有运作,在精神病的病人。欢爽并没有被切除,跟大他者。大他者逼迫精神病者过著仅是客体的存在,以满足大他者的幻想的欢爽。

To counter this
painful situation, Lacanian analysts have attempted to regulate the Other’s
overwhelming jouissance by imposing a set of symbolic rules, through
which certain aspects of the psychotic’s jouissance, such as the recourse
to self-mutilation, are being prohibited, and others are being enforced.
In curtailing the psychotic’s jouissance analysts epitomize a semblance
of castration, which is meant to be conducive to the creation of an artificial
space of desire and a socially adapted lifestyle.

为了对付这个令人痛苦的情况,拉康派的精神分析家曾经企图要规范大他者的压倒性的欢爽,凭借赋加一套的象征的规则。通过这些规则,某些的精神病的欢爽的层面,诸如诉诸于自我-切除,是被禁止。还有其他的欢爽正在被执行。当精神分析家缩减精神病者的欢爽时,他描绘出一个阉割的类似物。这个阉割的类似物被用来导致创造人为的欲望的空间,以及适应社会的生活方式。

Strategies of transference 143

The semblance of
castration can be implemented via the analyst’s radical ‘No!’ as a response
to particular expressions of the psychotic’s jouissance (Silvestre 1984:56),
or it can be effectuated more surreptitiously through the analyst’s demand
that patients engage in new social bonds and make themselves accessible
to new encounters (Broca 1985, 1988).

阉割的类似物能够被利用,经由分析家的强烈的“不!”,作为回应精神病的欢爽的特殊的表达。或是,它能够更加秘密地被实现,通过精神分析的要求。这样,病人参与新的社会的默契,并且让他们自己可以接近新的遭遇。

As regards the encouragement of
specific outlets for the psychotic’s jouissance, Lacanians have valued
the analyst’s role as a clinical Maecenas for the artistic projects in which
patients may indulge (Soler 1987:31). Whether painting, writing or any
other type of creative activity, these forms of expression contribute to
the fixation of the psychotic’s jouissance, which in turn increases the
chances for developing social competence.

关于对于精神病者的欢爽,明确的发泄的鼓励,拉康派临床重视分析家的角色,作为是临床的马西纳,因为病人可能耽溺其中的艺术的计划。无论是绘画,写作,或任何其他种类的创造的活动,这些形式的表达,促成精神病者的精神分析的欢爽的固著。反过来,精神病这的欢爽的固著增加发展社交胜任能力的机会。

Finally, on the vicissitudes of the transference in cases of perversion,
even Lacan’s followers have maintained their silence. Relying on Lacan’s
1959 statement that perversion ‘is indeed something articulate,
interpretable, analyzable…on precisely the same level as neurosis’ (Lacan
1977a[1959]:16) and Andre’s argument that perverts approach their
analysts as supposed subjects of enjoying, presenting themselves as
supposed subjects of knowing (Andre 1984:18; 1993:56), I intimated at
the end of Chapter 1 that analysts will have the utmost difficulty in treating
perverse patients, because they somehow display an image of themselves.

最后,针对在倒错症者的个案,移情的起伏变化,即使是拉康的跟随者也主张他们的沉默。他们依靠拉康在1957年的陈述:倒错症确实是某件表达,可以解释,可以分析的东西,跟神经症处于完全相同的层面。安德鲁的主张:倒错症者接近他们的分析家,作为被认为应该享乐的主体,他们呈现自己,作为被认为应该知道的主体。我在第一章的结束时主张,精神分析家将会遭遇最大的困难,当他们处理倒错症的病人。因为他们用某种方式展示他们自己的意象。

Analysing the perverse patient on the same level as a neurotic would
imply that the analyst endeavours to twist the pervert’s fantasy in such a
way that it becomes reinvested with desire at the expense of jouissance.
This seems only feasible if analysts explicitly refuse the attributed position
of supposed subject of enjoying by avoiding any complicity with the
pervert’s strategies and (re)emphasizing their own desire to know, notably
about what the pervert so ardently pretends to know about jouissance.

分析倒错症的病人,根据跟神经症者相同的层次,将会意味著,精神分析家企图扭曲倒错症者的幻想,用这样一种方式,以致它变得被投注欲望,以欢爽作为代价。这似乎是行得通,条件是分析家明确地拒绝这个被归属的立场,作为被认为应该享乐的主体。凭借跟倒错症者的策略作为共谋。并且重新强调他们自己想要知道的欲望。特别是关于倒错症者如此热烈地伪装要知道欢爽。

Challenging the pervert’s knowledge, exposing its inadequacies,
incoherence and inconsistencies, may then lead to the pervert’s
acknowledgement that some knowledge does escape subjective mastery,
and the renewed installation of the supposed subject of knowing. Whereas
the supposed subject of knowing needs to fall at the end of the neurotic’s
analysis, the installation of this function may thus constitute the terminus
of the pervert’s analytic itinerary. In both cases the cure is indeed ‘effected
by love’ (McGuire 1974:12–13) and therefore situated ‘on precisely the
same level’ (Lacan 1977a[1959]:16), but whilst in the neurotic
compartment love needs to travel from necessity to contingency, in the
perverse arrangement it needs to emerge as a necessity. In other words, the analysis of a pervert may be regarded as finished if he manages to
comply with the necessities of love.

挑战倒错症者的知识,暴露这个知识的不足够,不一贯与不一致,可能会导致倒错症者的承认:某些知识确实是主体无法掌控的,并且重新安置被认为应该知道的主体。虽然被认为应该道的主体需要掉落,在神经症者的精神分析的结束。这个功能的安置因此可能形成倒错症者的精神分析的旅行的终点站。在两种情况,治疗确实是由于爱所造成,因此被定位在确实是相同的层面。但是,在神经症的间隔里,爱需要旅行,从必要性到偶然性。然而,在倒错症者的安排里,爱需要出现,作为是必要性。换句话说,倒错者的精神分析可能会被认为是被完成,假如他成功地同意爱的必要性。

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: