Psychology of the Self: An unfinished revolution
自體的心理學: 未完成的革命
首先 我們回到1995
Stolorow argues, there
seem to be two groups of theorists in self psychology
today: the loyalists and the expansionists.
Another way to
characterize these groupings would be to contrast their strategies of
theorizing and the way they position Kohut's contribution vis-a-vis other
psychoanalytic schools.
One strategy (including
Basch's and the Omsteins') establishes Kohut's work as constituting a complete,
enduring, revolutionary paradigm, leaving only small details or implications to
be worked out.
A second strategy
positions Kohut's ouvre as a transitional development on the way to the fuller
emergence of a more encompassing, more comprehensively revolutionary paradigm.
Thus, Stolorow regards intersubjectivity theory and relational theories of
various sorts as providing a more complete field or systems model, emphasizing
the fully contextual interaction of subjectivities with reciprocal, mutual influence.
Stolorow positions Kohut as caught between paradigms and regards as
anachronistic some of Kohut's basic concepts, like the reincation of a self
with a nuclear program or inherent design.
In a different, but
closely related, fashion, Bacal also regards Kohut's self psychology as
incomplete and transitional. Bacal positions self psychology as half a
(relational) revolution, with object relations theories constituting the
missing other half. Self psychology leaves only implicit the other, in
its relation to the self; object relations theories leave only implicit the self,
in its relation to objects. As Bacal notes, people suffer not just from
self-depletion but from self-distortion, highlighting (as do object relations
theorists) the embeddedness within the self of the history of unsatisfying
relationships with others. Thus, in Bacal's perspective, as in Stolorow's,
Kohut's contribution is inherently unstable and transitional. Kohut was moving
us toward a more comprehensive framework, but, like Moses, Kohut himself never
quite got there.
Lachmann and Beebe adopt
a carefully honed middle position. Regarding Kohut's concepts as fundamental
and seminal but incomplete, they integrate those concepts with a broad range of
ideas and perspectives drawn from empirical research on children and others. … Unlike
Stolorow and Bacal, Lachmann and Beebe do not seem to regard Kohut's self
psychology as a transition to something else; but, unlike Basch and the
Ornsteins, Lachmann and Beebe do not regard Kohut's self psychology as
fundamentally complete in itself.
Beebe and Lachman
describe self psychology as an inherited house of many rooms: some redecorate,
some may do full renovations, and some keep the space in traditional forms. To
use a less structural metaphor, we might see this group of theoretical leaders
in self psychology as providing complex music with harmonies, counterpoint, and
plenty of fruitful discordance. (Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 5:3, 431-434, 1995)
以上 是廿年前的看法
今天我們怎麼看
What sparked the
Kohutian revolution? Basch gives a most convincing description of one powerful
impetus to change: the sharp and immediate shift in the clinical experience
with patients created by the adoption of Kohutian clinical practices. (ibid,
pp. 433-434)
Basch的意思是說 寇哈特的自體心理學 基本上是一個臨床的革命
我不同意
我說 寇哈特的自體心理學 是一個跟臨床有關 但超越臨床的革命
超越的意思是說 人的現象和經驗 人文學科 和社會科學 無法歸約於臨床
臨床視野 誠然難得 但所知有限
未完成的革命 意思是說 人的歷史還在遽變中 人還在遽變中 人的現象和經驗 還在遽變中
自體的心理學 (Psychology of the Self) 不等於自體心理學 (Self Psychology)
自體心理學 點燃了自體的心理學的革命 但不等於完成了自體的心理學的革命
只要人類這個物種 還沒有滅絕 還在地球上昂首闊步 發生最糟的和最好的 自體的心理學的旅途 就還沒有結束
我們不是奧林匹亞山上的神祉 我們屬於這個遽變的世界和歷史 我們屬於這個最糟的和最好的可能 我們無意逃離屬於人的命運 但我們願 留在現場
點起最後一支紙菸 看著窗外 和拂曉前的晨星
