從自體心理學到自體的心理學，途經關係學派精神分析的二人心理學 （2023-5-4)
（一）
二零一九年，我與輔大心理所，最後一次結緣，講四路，路一，自體的心理學，路二，存在治療，路三，批判的心理治療，路四，關係學派精神分析，
意思是說，今天講的關係學派，其實是「從自體心理學到自體的心理學」，的途中一站，
有點像，從台北去高雄，你會經過西門町桃園機場淺水灣崙背阿里山烏山頭關山墾丁辛辛那提芝加哥，
（二）
因為，這一切的起因是，「我今天下午要去高雄」，
意思是說，起因是自體的能動性 （sense of agency) ，
一九年後，我曾處理，後人類，後結構主義，
這兩者，對於那個自體的能動性，是嗤之以鼻的，
這個嗤之以鼻，我們稱之為，主體性對於自體的嘲諷，
意思是說，「我今天下午要去高雄」，的我，
不足以回答，生命和宇宙的終極意義，我從哪裡來，我為什麼來到這裡，我到底要去哪裡，
你要記得，這就是高更在大溪地，回答的問題，
但是，我對大溪地，沒有興趣，也不打算回答，這種問題，
我只想回答，一個人怎麼從台北去高雄，
我認為，高鐵是人類文明的墮落，區間車是復古的懷鄉，高速公路的休息站很好，可以漱洗車泊，只要不超過四小時，
意思是說，在慢車上讀沙河悲歌，或在公路上跑路十八年，這是我去高雄的逃逸的路徑 （lines of flight) 的抉擇，
（三）
為什麼從自體心理學到自體的心理學，途中要經過關係學派精神分析的二人心理學？
因為過去一百三十年，精神分析的發展，是一個從一人心理學到二人心理學的旅途，
這件事，要從那些歇斯底里的年輕女病人，到底跟佛洛依德說了些什麼說起，
（四）
But when it comes to one major human experience, sexual trauma, Freud was right only briefly, and then, forevermore, wrong. Dead wrong. But let me hasten to add that I cannot claim to understand Freud’s state of mind when he changed his view, from one of believing sexual abuse to be true (say from around 1895–1903), to one of believing it to be false. Unless new documents come to light (unlikely), we will probably never know the true reasons Freud altered his opinion. （The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory, by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson, 1984, 2012, preface)
（五）
我相信，佛洛依德為什麼放棄 Seduction Theory，這個謎，藏在他與 Wilhelm Fliess 的書信集中，
The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fliess, 1887-1904, by Sigmund Freud, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson Belknap Press, 1986
Freud's abandonment of the seduction hypothesis had significant implications for the development of psychoanalysis and the understanding of psychological disorders.
The seduction hypothesis was Freud's initial theory that many of his patients had been sexually abused as children and that this abuse was the primary cause of their psychological symptoms. However, he later abandoned this theory and replaced it with the theory of the Oedipus complex, which posited that a child's unconscious desires for their opposite-sex parent and hostility towards their same-sex parent were the primary cause of their psychological symptoms.
One implication of Freud's abandonment of the seduction hypothesis was that it shifted the focus of psychoanalysis away from external traumas and towards internal conflicts. This led to the development of the concept of the unconscious and the emphasis on exploring patients' childhood experiences and fantasies as a means of understanding their current psychological state.
Another implication was that it raised questions about the validity of patients' reports of sexual abuse. Freud's abandonment of the seduction hypothesis was controversial and led to accusations that he was dismissing or even denying the reality of sexual abuse. However, Freud argued that his patients' reports of abuse were often the result of their unconscious desires and fantasies, rather than actual events.
Overall, Freud's abandonment of the seduction hypothesis was a significant turning point in the development of psychoanalysis and had far-reaching implications for the understanding and treatment of psychological disorders.
The return of the seduction hypothesis did not directly lead to the development of two-person psychology and relational psychoanalysis.
The concept of two-person psychology emerged in the 1950s and 1960s, when psychoanalysts such as Robert Stolorow and Heinz Kohut began to challenge the traditional Freudian view of the psychoanalytic process as a one-sided exploration of the patient's unconscious conflicts. Instead, they argued that the therapeutic relationship was a mutually transformative process in which both the patient and the analyst played an active role.
Similarly, relational psychoanalysis emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the perceived limitations of traditional psychoanalytic theory and practice. Relational psychoanalysts emphasized the importance of the therapeutic relationship and the influence of the analyst's subjectivity on the therapeutic process.
However, the return of the seduction hypothesis did contribute to a broader re-examination of Freudian theory and practice, and it opened up new avenues for exploring the role of early childhood experiences and interpersonal relationships in the development of psychopathology. This, in turn, laid the groundwork for the emergence of two-person psychology and relational psychoanalysis.
In summary, while the return of the seduction hypothesis did not directly lead to the development of two-person psychology and relational psychoanalysis, it did contribute to a broader re-examination of psychoanalytic theory and practice that paved the way for these approaches.
Yes, there were several other psychoanalysts who contributed to the return of the seduction hypothesis and the renewed focus on the impact of childhood trauma and abuse on psychological development.
One notable figure in this regard was Alice Miller, a Swiss psychoanalyst who wrote extensively on the effects of childhood abuse and trauma on emotional development. Miller argued that Freud had erred in abandoning the seduction hypothesis and that the impact of childhood trauma on adult psychopathology was far more significant than Freud had acknowledged. Her work had a significant influence on the development of trauma theory and the understanding of the long-term effects of childhood abuse and neglect.
Another important figure was Michael Balint, a Hungarian psychoanalyst who worked closely with Sandor Ferenczi and was sympathetic to his views on the importance of early childhood experience in shaping adult psychopathology. Balint emphasized the role of the analyst in providing a reparative experience for patients who had experienced childhood trauma and argued that the analyst's empathic attunement to the patient's emotional needs was crucial for the therapeutic process.
Other psychoanalysts who contributed to the renewed interest in the seduction hypothesis and the study of childhood trauma and abuse include Judith Herman, Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel, and Andre Green, among others. Together, these psychoanalysts helped to expand and deepen our understanding of the complex and often hidden ways in which childhood experiences can shape adult mental health and well-being.
Yes, the return of the seduction hypothesis can be seen as a recognition that external reality, including traumatic events such as childhood abuse and neglect, can have a profound impact on the psyche and cannot be entirely subsumed by inner, psychic reality.
In the early years of psychoanalysis, Freud emphasized the primacy of internal, psychic reality and the importance of uncovering unconscious conflicts and fantasies as the key to understanding psychological symptoms. This led him to downplay the role of external reality, including traumatic events such as childhood abuse and neglect, as potential contributors to psychological distress.
However, the return of the seduction hypothesis and the renewed interest in childhood trauma and abuse signaled a shift in this perspective. It acknowledged that external reality, including traumatic events, could have a powerful and lasting impact on the psyche and that the study of the interplay between external and internal realities was crucial for understanding psychological development and pathology.
This shift paved the way for the development of trauma theory and the recognition of the complex and often long-term effects of childhood trauma and abuse on emotional and psychological well-being. It also led to a renewed focus on the therapeutic relationship and the importance of providing a safe and supportive environment for patients to explore and work through their experiences of trauma and abuse.
"Après coup" is a French term used in psychoanalytic theory to describe the phenomenon of delayed impact or deferred action. It refers to the idea that events or experiences in childhood may not have immediate or obvious effects on the psyche, but rather their impact may be deferred and only become apparent later in life.
In terms of the seduction hypothesis, the concept of après coup is relevant in that it suggests that traumatic experiences such as sexual abuse may have a delayed impact on the psyche. This delayed impact may be due to factors such as repression, denial, or the lack of adequate psychological resources to process and integrate the traumatic experience at the time it occurred.
In this sense, the concept of après coup can be seen as a way of understanding the complex and often hidden ways in which childhood trauma and abuse can shape adult psychological development and pathology. It highlights the importance of exploring early life experiences and their potential impact on the psyche, even if their effects may not be immediately apparent.
Furthermore, the concept of après coup can also be seen as a way of reconciling the seduction hypothesis with later developments in psychoanalytic theory. By acknowledging the delayed impact of childhood trauma and abuse on the psyche, the concept of après coup suggests that traumatic experiences may have played a role in the development of symptoms even if they were not immediately apparent or explicitly remembered by the patient.
Overall, the concept of après coup provides a valuable framework for understanding the complex interplay between external reality and internal psychic reality in the development of psychological symptoms, including those related to childhood trauma and abuse.
The concept of the "body without organs" comes from the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze and is typically associated with his book "Anti-Oedipus" co-written with psychoanalyst Félix Guattari. The concept refers to a hypothetical state of being in which the body is no longer organized or structured in a hierarchical or differentiated way. Instead, it is a chaotic and undifferentiated state, free of social and cultural norms.
While the concept of the "body without organs" is not explicitly linked to trauma, it has been taken up by some psychoanalytic theorists and practitioners as a way of understanding the experience of trauma. In this context, the "body without organs" can be seen as a metaphor for the experience of fragmentation and disorganization that can occur in the aftermath of trauma.
Traumatic experiences can lead to a breakdown in the usual structures and meanings that organize our experience of ourselves and the world around us. This can result in feelings of disorientation, confusion, and a sense of being disconnected from one's own body and emotions. In this sense, the experience of trauma can be seen as a kind of "de-territorialization" of the body and the psyche, a dissolution of the usual boundaries and structures that give shape to our experience.
Some psychoanalytic theorists have suggested that working with the concept of the "body without organs" can be a useful way of exploring and addressing the experience of trauma. By acknowledging the disorganization and fragmentation that can occur in the aftermath of trauma, and by working to re-establish a sense of structure and coherence, it may be possible to support the process of healing and recovery.
Schizoanalysis is a theoretical approach developed by the French philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari that aims to challenge traditional psychoanalytic approaches and to develop a non-reductive understanding of human subjectivity. While schizoanalysis shares some similarities with two-person psychology, they are not identical concepts.
Two-person psychology is a term used to describe a range of theoretical and clinical approaches that emphasize the importance of the therapeutic relationship between the analyst and the patient. It acknowledges that the therapeutic encounter is a two-person process, shaped by the unique personalities, experiences, and perspectives of both the analyst and the patient.
Schizoanalysis, on the other hand, is a theoretical approach that seeks to challenge the traditional psychoanalytic emphasis on the individual psyche and to reconceptualize subjectivity as a social and political phenomenon. It emphasizes the importance of the collective and the social in shaping individual experience and rejects the notion of the individual as a self-contained and autonomous entity.
In schizoanalysis, the analyst is not seen as an authority figure or an interpreter of the patient's unconscious, but rather as a collaborator in the patient's exploration of their experience. The goal is to create a shared space in which the patient and the analyst can engage in a process of mutual exploration and experimentation, rather than one in which the analyst has all the answers.
In summary, while schizoanalysis and two-person psychology share some similarities in their emphasis on the therapeutic relationship and the importance of the social and relational context in shaping human experience, they are distinct concepts with different theoretical and clinical implications.
While there are some similarities between relational psychoanalysis and schizoanalysis, they are distinct theoretical and clinical approaches with different origins and emphases.
Relational psychoanalysis emerged in the 1980s and 1990s as a response to the limitations of traditional Freudian and ego-psychological approaches. It emphasizes the importance of the therapeutic relationship and the recognition that both the patient and the analyst bring their own subjectivity and relational history to the therapeutic encounter. Relational psychoanalysis also emphasizes the importance of understanding the patient's subjective experience in the context of their relational and cultural context.
Schizoanalysis, on the other hand, is a theoretical approach developed by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari in the 1970s that aimed to challenge traditional psychoanalytic approaches and to develop a non-reductive understanding of human subjectivity. It emphasizes the importance of the collective and the social in shaping individual experience and rejects the notion of the individual as a self-contained and autonomous entity. In schizoanalysis, the goal is to create a shared space in which the patient and the analyst can engage in a process of mutual exploration and experimentation, rather than one in which the analyst has all the answers.
While both relational psychoanalysis and schizoanalysis emphasize the importance of the therapeutic relationship and the recognition of subjectivity, they differ in their emphasis on the social and political dimensions of subjectivity. Relational psychoanalysis tends to focus on the interpersonal and relational dimensions of subjectivity, whereas schizoanalysis emphasizes the collective and social dimensions.
In summary, while there may be some overlap and cross-fertilization between relational psychoanalysis and schizoanalysis, they are distinct approaches with different origins and theoretical emphases.
意思是說，當佛洛依德放棄了 seduction hypothesis ，精神分析就變成了，只是普魯斯特的世界 （Proustian)，對外在世界 （Kafkaesque)，僅存口惠 （lip service)，其實畢竟，眼不見為淨，所以佛洛依德當年此舉，我們可以稱之為，精神分析的「真正的歧出」，多年來，斷斷續續，一直有人呼籲，打開窗，打開門，從一人心理學，到二人心理學，這個打開，我們遂走了一百年，你要理解，我上述這麼說，並不是說，一人心理學，全是錯誤，沒有價值，但是，當你有二人心理學的視野後，才能恰當的讀出，錯誤在哪裡，價值在哪裡，意思是說，精神分析需雙語 （bilingual) ，一人心理學和二人心理學，就是那個雙語，
（七）
從一人心理學到二人心理學，的遺落的環節 （missing link)，在 Sandor Ferenczi 的臨床日記 （1932/1985 法文版/1988 英德文版），
意思是說，Ferenczi 為我們保留了 Seduction Theory，以致保留了對創傷，對外在世界，對外在現實的直面，
（八）
你要理解，自體的心理學，已經不只是自體心理學，
自體心理學，是一點五人的心理學，
我修正一下，我先前的講法，
我先前是這麼說的，
自體心理學，中間學派，依附理論，是精神上的好兄弟，皆為一點五，
但是細分下去，中間學派的 Fairbairn 行事拘謹，恐怕只有一點三四，Winnicott 比 Kohut 心軟，已往右至一點六七，Guntrip 則甚至更右，可至一點七八，Michael Balint 怕墮入乃師被指責的錯誤，不欲往右太明顯，遂在一點五六徘徊，依附理論，理論上贊成一點七八，但是 Bowlby 非治療者，他並沒有機會，如此實踐，
互為主體理論，屬一點七，
關係學派，有意來到停在二點零，但知道治療的溢越 （therapeutic excess) 是危險的，實務上遂往往，往左退回一點八九，
意思是說，最有機會思考和實踐二點零的，就是關係學派，
意思是說，我們要跟關係學派學的，就是二點零的風景，
（九）
為什麼自體的心理學，需要熟悉二點零的風景，
因為跨過二，他才可以來到三，和大於三的世界，
因為我打算，看著那個人，
走進荒野，走進歷史，
尋找，
他在自然，他在歷史，
的復位，
（十）
因為從一點零到二點零，我們仍困在原生家庭，困在 daddy-mommy-me，
雖然越往右走，越趨近二點零，你越有機會見到，你這輩子會見到的陌生人 （stranger) ，
你要理解，見不到陌生人，就表示你自己，還不是陌生人，對於另一個人，就表示你還沒有見到這個世界，還沒有行走在這個世界，
意思是說，真正的互為主體，是兩個陌生人之間的互為主體，
存在哲學，存在治療，講的那個荒謬 （absurd) ，只可能發生在陌生人，
批判的心理治療，講的那個卡夫卡式的夢魘 （Kafkaesque) ，只可能發生在陌生人，
分裂分析 （schizoanalysis) ，講的那個走進公園的散步，只可能發生在陌生人，
熟悉二人心理學，就是為了迎接，那個公園裡，迎面而來的陌生人，
（十一）
至此，你可以理解，自體的心理學，已走出精神分析 （意思是說，自體心理學，尚在精神分析範圍），
以致，自體的心理學，也已走出心理治療，意思是說，它不見得只是治療，
它是人生哲學，生命哲學，
用在治療，它意在直面這個世界，它不是一成不變，它須揀選，釐清內外，然後尊重，那個人的決定，
用在治療，其治療關係，我想，應該位在一點五到一點九，雖然治療者和病人，兩人的視野和關懷，已經在一二三之間，反覆移動，
你要理解，人生，就是那個，反覆移動，以致，讓我們祝福他，能夠，在某個瞬間，來到流動，
