演化是大寫的它 (Mark Leffert 2018)

大寫的它大於小寫的他意思是說你我做為小寫的他只能接受大寫的它給小寫的他帶來的命運比如說在消失的冰原上落淚悲嚎的北極熊人類作為一個物種的不知天高地厚的罪惡就在他以為自己是大寫的他而大寫的它不管那是甚麼樣的它生物法則物理法則演化法則經濟法則的它都變成小寫的它Mark Leffert舉了一個泡在機油裡不做解釋的例子的理由就是他突然知道我們內化進去的客體關係有演化上的已成事實的必要的意義這符合數日前我說的那個奇怪的想法就是輕症重症我們都只能做一件事那就是泡在機油裡唯一差別是泡一天還是三年五年十年還是數百萬年

As an optimistic clinician, I choose to believe that these transgenerational effects are treatable and that the complicated material we have just discussed provides a more effective way of understanding them. Another way of saying this in neurobiological language is that transgenerational epigenesis can be altered by neuroplasticity (Doidge, 2007). Thinking about transgenerational epigenesis also suggests a way out of some therapeutic impasses in which event-based work goes only so far and then fails. Therapeutic action on these effects will not be based at all on causative events but will play out entirely in the therapeutic relationship. Events will figure in this part of the therapeutic work, but as illustrations of the issues coming up in the relationship, not as history.

Let me offer a brief case illustration. Jennifer, a university professor in her 40s, sought therapy, and eventually analysis due to an intractable relationship with a verbally abusive, controlling husband. It emerged that she suffered from a masochistic character that developed in the childhood cauldron of a sadistically abusive older brother, a sweet hear no evil-see no evil-speak no evil father, and a mother who viewed her as competition and lost no opportunity to put Jennifer down and deny how her brother was abusing her. Now, here’s what’s interesting. The analysis successfully dissolved her masochistic character. She no longer allowed anyone to mistreat her and challenged such treatment, both in her intimate relationships and in her relationships and contacts in the wider world. However, she was unable to end any of the dysfunctional relationships. An old criterion for viewing a successful analysis that I believe still has some merit, involving the successful separation and moving on from the infantile objects, had not been met. Jennifer knew all these things about her parents and her brother (all long dead) and about her husband, but she tended to forget and dismiss them and was unable to separate from these people. (Forgetting did not involve her allowing them to treat her abusively: the character repair remained in place.) The analysis (and me) continued to bang unsuccessfully against this problem (Jennifer and I were banging on it together) until I recently came up with the idea that the nature of one’s object relations was important enough evolutionarily to be a candidate for epigenetic transmission. According to this line of reasoning, Jennifer had inherited a tendency for very sticky object relations and while we could easily imagine situations where such a tendency would be highly adaptive and heritable, this was not one of them. At this point, I thought (as I would have outside of this line of reasoning) to take the dilemma directly to the patient: I asked Jennifer how I could help her. She responded that I should just be there, listen, and support her. Based on this clinical moment and my hypothesizing, I changed my clinical stance with her to simply allowing her to be in an interpretation-free relationship with me. It is too soon to know if this stance will prove effective in this kind of therapeutic situation, but preliminary results are positive.

Leffert, Mark. Psychoanalysis and the Birth of the Self (pp. 84-85). Taylor and Francis. 2018, Kindle edition.