Archive for the ‘精神分析基本技巧’ Category

精神分析技術的基本原則 p6

June 14, 2011

Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique
精神分析技術的基本原則 p6

布魯斯 芬克

Listening and Hearing

P 6
Deferring Understanding

Defer 的意思「拖延到後來」to delay until a later time。為什麼要將「理解拖延到後來呢?」因為自以為的「理解」,往往不是「真的理解」,反而因此封閉了對方無意識的「言說」speech 必須要說的話。

Within himself as well as in the external world, [the analyst] must always expect to find something new.
–Freud (J912b/J958, p. JJ7)


As well as 的意思是「以及」,而不是「或」。不過中文的「無論、、、或」聽起來又有點兩者兼具的意味。英文其實也有這樣的用法。

There are trees on both sides of the road.
= There are trees on either side of the road.
= There are tree on this side of the road as well as the other side of the road.

這句的重點在something new ,為什麼總是要「新的事物」呢?「舊的事物」不行嗎?分析師如何在「他自己的內部」,或「外在的世界」「期待發現新的事物」呢?而且一兩次,還不夠,要「總是」!

The unconscious shuts down insofar as the analyst no longer “supports speech, ” because he already knows or thinks he knows what speech has to say.
–Lacan (2006, p. 359)
當分析師不再「支持說話」(support speech)時,無意識就擺工了,因為他已經知道或自以為知道病人要說什麼。
 拉岡 ( 2006, 359)
Insofar as 是連接詞,表示「程度」to the degree,一般譯為「依據」或「隨著」,如insofar as I know it 「依據我我對它的瞭解」。

無意識的shut down 是「關閉」close firmly ,或是「罷工」?

he already knows or thinks he knows what speech has to say 句子裏的he,指分析師,has to say 的主詞,應該是speech 言說,而不是病人

“supports speech,” 「支持說話」,多加一個引號,因為speech 是指無意識的speech「說話」,跟病人要說什麼是兩回事。

If our attempts to “understand” ineluctably lead us to reduce what another
person is saying to what we think we already know (indeed, that could serve
as a pretty fair definition of understanding in general), one of the first steps we must take is to stop trying to understand so quickly.


Ineluctably—by necessity 無可避免地,修飾lead ,不是修飾 understand
to understand 是不定詞片語,形容詞用法,修飾前面的our attempts

lead us to reduce 「導致或促成我們去化約」,「讓」聽起來像是「容許」permission 。


another person 是「另外一個人」,others 或other people 才是「別人」。

what another person is saying 「另外一個人正在說的話」。英文的子句是現在進行式,強調當下的動作。

Indeed 的意思「的確」it is true, in fact 才是「實際上」

that could serve as 「大可用來充當、、、」could 而不是can ,帶有虛擬及委婉的意味

a pretty fair definition of understanding in general

It is not by showing the analysand that we understand what he is saying that we build an alliance with him–especially given the fact that our attempts to show him that we understand often fall flat and demonstrate the exact opposite–but, rather, by listening to him in a way that he has never been listened to before.


analysand 一般譯為「受分析者」,大陸則譯為「參訪者」。彭榮邦演講時,特別解釋,譯為「分析者」,強調拉岡Jacques Lacan,(大陸譯為拉康)的觀點:「受分析者」自己要先能分析自己,「分析師」才有辦法介入。故具有「主動」意味,不完全是「被動」。

we build an alliance with him 我們和分析者得以形成治療的同盟關係。這個we 指的是analysts 「分析師」。英文沒有「治療的」,譯者自加,大概是為了幫助理解。

but, rather, by listening to him in a way that he has never been listened to before.

Rather 有「相反地」的意思,被漏譯。


especially given the fact that our attempts to show him that we understand often fall flat and demonstrate the exact opposite


given that 的意思是「假如我們考慮到」if one take into account ,不是「當我們已經知道」。

Fall flat 「沒有效用」「起不了作用」 have no effect,主詞是前面的attempts「嘗試」 ,to show him that we understand 是不定詞片語,形容詞片語,修飾attempts。

demonstrate the exact opposite 證明「恰恰相反」。Demonstrate 被漏譯。

布魯斯 芬克 BRUCE FINK 的「精神分析技術的基本原則」 The Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique,我才譯了幾頁,讀書會的C,就給我一份彭榮邦教授的翻譯手稿。由於彭教授的翻譯相當精確,而且文詞順暢,我再重譯似乎沒有什麼意義。於是臨機一動,改為注釋與對照。


June 12, 2011

Fundamentals of Psychoanalytic Technique

布魯斯 芬克

Listening and Hearing

Freud remarked that there is perhaps a kind of speaking that is worthwhile precisely because up until now it was merely interdicted–which means spoken between, between the lines. That is what he called the repressed.
–Lacan (1 974-1975, Aprils, 1 9 75)

–拉康 (1 974-1975, 4月, 1 9 75)

THE PSYCHOANALYSTS first task is to listen and to listen carefuIly.


Although this has been emphasized by many authors, there are surprisingly few good listeners in the psychotherapeutic world. Why is that? There are several reasons, some of which are primarily personal and others of which are more structural, but one of the most important reasons is that we tend to hear everything in relation to ourselves. When someone tells us a story, we think of similar stories (or more extreme stories) we ourselves could tell in turn.


We start thinking about things that have happened to us that allow us to “relate to” the other person’s experience, to “know” what it must have been like, or at least to imagine how we ourselves would have felt had we been in the other person’s shoes. In other words, our usual way of listening is centered to a great degree on ourselves our own similar life experiences, our own similar feelings, our own perspectives.


When we can locate experiences, feelings, and perspectives of our
own that resemble the other person’s, we believe that we “relate to” that
person: We say things like “1 know what you mean,” ”Yeah,” “1 hear you,”
“1 feel for you,” or “1 feel your pain” (perhaps less often “1 feel your joy”).


At such moments, we feel sympathy, empathy, or pity for this other who seems like us; “That must have been painful (or wonderful) for you,” we say, imagining the pain (or joy) we ourselves would have experienced in such a situation.


When we are unable to locate experiences, feelings, or perspectives that
resemble the other person’s, we have the sense that we do not understand that person–indeed, we may find the person strange, if not obtuse or irrational.


When someone does not operate in the same way that we do or does not react
to situations as we do, we are often baffled, incredulous, or even dumbfounded.


We are inclined, in the latter situation, to try to correct the other’s perspectives, to persuade him to see things the way we see them and to feel what we ourselves would feel were we in such a predicament. In more extreme cases, we simply become judgmental: How could anyone, we ask ourselves, believe such a thing or act or feel that way􀑏


Most simply stated, our usual way of listening overlooks or rejects the otherness of the other. We rarely listen to what makes a story as told by another person unique, specific to that person alone; we quickly assimilate it to other stories that we have heard others tell about themselves or that we could tell about ourselves, overlooking the differences between the story being told and the ones with which we are already familiar. We rush to gloss over the differences and make the stories similar if not identical. In our haste to identify with the
other, to have something in common with him, we forcibly equate stories that are often incommensurate, reducing what we are hearing to what we already know.


What we find most difficult to hear is what is utterly new and different:
thoughts, experiences, and emotions that are quite foreign to our own and
even to any we have thus far learned about.


It is often believed that we human beings share many of the same feelings
and reactions to the world, which is what allows us to more or less understand each other and constitutes the foundation of our shared humanity.


In an attempt to combat a certain stereotype of the psychoanalyst as a detached, unfeeling scientist rather than as a living, breathing human being, certain practitioners have suggested that the analyst should regularly empathize with the analysand, highlighting what they have in common, in order to establish a solid therapeutic alliance.


Although these practitioners have a number of good intentions
(for example, to debunk the belief in the analyst’s objectivity), expressions of empathy can emphasize the analyst’s and analysand’s shared humanity in a way that whitewashes or rides roughshod over aspects of their humanity that are unshared.