In the last few years I have had an opportunity of studying analytically anumber of men whose object-choice was dominated by a fetish. There is no needto expect that these people came to analysis on account of their fetish. Forthough no doubt a fetish is recognized by its adherents as an abnormality, itis seldom felt by them as the symptom of an ailment accompanied by suffering.Usually they are quite satisfied with it, or even praise the way in which iteases their erotic life. As a rule, therefore, the fetish made its appearancein analysis as a subsidiary finding.
在过去的几年中，我分析性地研究了许多其对象/客体选择被一种迷恋物(fetish)所控制的人。不必期望这些人会因为他们的迷恋物而来做分析。因为尽管迷恋物会被其拥护者视为一种异常，但他们却几乎不会将其感觉为一种伴随着痛苦而来的疾病的症状。他们通常会对此感到非常满意，甚至还称赞它改善自己性生活的方式。因此，一般说来，迷恋物在分析中通常是作为一种附带的发现物而出现的。
For obvious reasons the details of these cases must be withheld frompublication; I cannot, therefore, show in what way accidental circumstanceshave contributed to the choice of a fetish. The most extraordinary case seemedto me to be one in which a young man had exalted a certain sort of shine on thenose?into a fetishistic precondition. The surprising explanation of this wasthat the patient had been brought up in an English nursery but had later cometo Germany, where he forgot his mother-tongue almost completely. The fetish,which originated from his earliest childhood, had to be understood in English,not German. The shine on the nose?- was in reality a glance at the nose? Thenose was thus the fetish, which, incidentally, he endowed at will with the luminousshine which was not perceptible to others.
出于一些明显的原因，这些案例的细节必须予以保留而不能发表；因此，我便不能展示偶然的情况是通过怎样的方式来促成对一种迷恋物的选择的。对我而言，最为特殊的一个案例便是一位小伙子把某种“鼻子上的亮光(shine on the nose)”提升到了恋物之前提的位置上。对此的令人惊奇的解释则是患者原来由一家英国的育儿所抚养，但随后又到了德国，在那儿他几乎把自己的母语忘得一干二净了。这个起源于其童年早期的物恋，应该在英语而不是德语中去寻求理解。“鼻子上的亮光”——实际上是“对鼻子的一瞥(a glance at the nose)”。鼻子因而就是他偶然将别人所无法理解的明亮光泽随意赋予其上的迷恋物。
In every instance, the meaning and the purpose of the fetish turned out, inanalysis, to be the same. It revealed itself so naturally and seemed to me socompelling that I am prepared to expect the same solution in all cases offetishism. When now I announce that the fetish is a substitute for the penis, Ishall certainly create disappointment; so I hasten to add that it is not asubstitute for any chance penis, but for a particular and quite special penisthat had been extremely important in early childhood but had later been lost.That is to say, it should normally have been given up, but the fetish isprecisely designed to preserve it from extinction. To put it more plainly: thefetish is a substitute for the woman's (the mother's) penis that the little boyonce believed in and - for reasons familiar to us - does not want to giveup.[1]
在每一个例子中，迷恋物的意义与目的在分析中都会被证明是相同的。它是如此自然地将自己呈现出来，以致于使我都无法抗拒去期待在所有的恋物癖案例中运用同样的解决办法。当我现在宣称迷恋物是阴茎的一个替代物时，我肯定会让各位失望；因此我得赶紧补充道它不是任何一种偶然阴茎的替代物，而是一种在童年早期异常重要但之后却遗失了的个别的和非常特殊的阴茎的替代物。这就是说，它通常应该是被放弃了的东西，而迷恋物则恰恰被计划用来防止它的消失。说得更简洁一些：迷恋物是小男孩所相信并且——出于某些我们所熟悉的理由——不愿放弃的女性的（母亲的）阴茎替代物。[1]
What happened, therefore, was that the boy refused to take cognizance of thefact of his having perceived that a woman does not possess a penis. No, thatcould not be true: for if a woman had been castrated, then his own possessionof a penis was in danger; and against that there rose in rebellion the portionof his narcissism which Nature has, as a precaution, attached to thatparticular organ. In later life a grown man may perhaps experience a similarpanic when the cry goes up that Throne and Altar are in danger, and similarillogical consequences will ensue. If I am not mistaken, Laforgue would say inthis case that the boy 'scotomizes'his perception of the woman's lack of apenis.[2]A new technical term is justified when it describes a new fact oremphasizes it. This is not so here. The oldest word in our psycho-analyticterminology, 'repression' already relates to this pathological process. If wewanted to differentiate more sharply between the vicissitude of the idea asdistinct from that of the affect, and reserve the word 'Verdrängung'['repression'] for the affect, then the correct German word forthe vicissitude of the idea would be 'Verleugnung'['disavowal'].'scotomization'seems to me particularly unsuitable, for it suggests that theperception is entirely wiped out, so that the result is the same as when avisual impression falls on the blind spot in the retina. In the situation weare considering, on the contrary, we see that the perception has persisted, andthat a very energetic action has been undertaken to maintain the disavowal. Itis not true that, after the child has made his observation of the woman, he haspreserved unaltered his belief that women have a phallus. He has retained thatbelief, but he has also given it up. In the conflict between the weight of theunwelcome perception and the force of his counter-wish, a compromise has beenreached, as is only possible under the dominance of the unconscious laws ofthought - the primary processes. Yes, in his mind the woman has got a penis, inspite of everything; but this penis is no longer the same as it was before.Something else has taken its place, has been appointed its substitute, as itwere, and now inherits the interest which was formerly directed to itspredecessor. But this interest suffers an extraordinary increase as well,because the horror of castration has set up a memorial to itself in thecreation of this substitute. Furthermore, an aversion, which is never absent inany fetishist, to the real female genitals remains a stigma indelebile of therepression that has taken place. We can now see what the fetish achieves andwhat it is that maintains it. It remains a token of triumph over the threat ofcastration and a protection against it. It also saves the fetishist frombecoming a homosexual, by endowing women with the characteristic which makesthem tolerable as sexual objects. In later life, the fetishist feels that heenjoys yet another advantage from his substitute for a genital. The meaning ofthe fetish is not known to other people, so the fetish is not withheld fromhim: it is easily accessible and he can readily obtain the sexual satisfactionattached to it. What other men have to woo and make exertions for can be had bythe fetishist with no trouble at all.
由此而发生的，便是男孩拒绝承认自己觉察到了一个没有阴茎的女人这一事实。不，这不会是真的：如果一个女人遭到了阉割，那么他对自身阴茎的占有（权）便也会变得岌岌可危，并且他将防止——作为一种预防措施——天生就依附于那个独特器官的那部分自恋感的丧失。一个已经长大的人在以后生活中皇权与教权遭到威胁的呼声响起而类似不合逻辑的结果将会因之产生时，或许会体验到类似的痛苦。如果我没有弄错的话，拉弗格（Laforgue）在这个案例中会说这个男孩“无视（scotomizes）”了他对女人缺乏阴茎的认识。[2]当它描述或者强调一个新的事实时，一个新的术语便是合理的了。（但）在此却不是这样。“压抑”，精神分析学中最古老的术语，已经涉及到这个病理过程了。如果我们想要更加严格地区分与观念（idea）的变化不同的情感(affect)的变化，而将“压抑（Verdrängung/repression）”这个词留给情感的话，那么留给观念变化的正确的德语词就将是“否认(Verleugnung/disavowal)”。“无视（Scotomization）”这个说法对我而言特别地不合适，因为它暗示知觉被彻底消除了，因此其结果就和一个视觉印象落在了视网膜的盲点上一样。与此相反，在我们所考虑的情况中，知觉是被保持着的，并且有一个极具活力的行动因欲保持这种否认而被执行。在孩子对母亲进行完观察之后，他仍将保持对女性拥有阴茎这一不变信念的说法是不正确的。他保留了那个信念，但同样也放弃了它。在对那个不受欢迎的认识与他的相反愿望进行权衡的冲突中，一个折衷的办法产生了，而这只有在思想的无意识法则——原初过程（the primary processes）——的统治之下才是可能的。是的，无论怎样，在他心中女人有一根阴茎；但这根阴茎却不是它之前的样子了。某些其他的东西已经替代了它的位置，已经被派来做了它的替代物，并且可以说它如今继承了曾经是朝向它的前任的那种兴趣。但这种兴趣也忍受着一种非同一般的增量，因为阉割的恐惧在它创造这一替代物的过程中为自己设立了一座纪念碑。此外，一种任何一位恋物者都不会缺少的对女性真正生殖器的厌恶，将会在所发生的压抑中继续保留为一个无法擦除的污点。现在我们可以看到迷恋物实现了什么以及什么是维持它的东西了。它保留了战胜阉割威胁的一个标记以及对阉割威胁的一个防御。它还通过赋予作为性爱对象的女人以可接受的特征而使这些恋物者们没有变成同性恋者。在以后的生活中，恋物者们感觉到他们也很喜欢由他们的生殖器替代物所带来的另一个好处。其他人是不知道迷恋物的意义的，因此迷恋物并不对他保持隐蔽：它很容易被得到，并且他乐意去获得依附于它的性满足。其他人不得不去追求并为之努力奋斗的东西却能被恋物者轻而易举地得到。
Probably no male human being is spared the fright of castration at the sight ofa female genital. Why some people become homosexual as a consequence of thatimpression, while others fend it off by creating a fetish, and the greatmajority surmount it, we are frankly not able to explain. It is possible that,among all the factors at work, we do not yet know those which are decisive forthe rare pathological results. We must be content if we can explain what hashappened, and may for the present leave on one side the task of explaining whysomething has not happened.
大概没有男人会在看到女性的生殖器后还能处在被阉割的恐惧之外。为什么有些人会因为那个印象而成了同性恋者，另一些通过创造一个迷恋物而挡开了它，而（剩下的）绝大多数人则克服了它？坦率地说，我们无法解答。有可能在所有起作用的因素中，我们还不知道哪些是导致这些罕见的病态结果的决定性因素。如果我们能够解释已经发生了的事，我们必将感到满足，并且可能要将解释为何一些事并未发生的任务暂时放在一旁。
One would expect that the organs or objects chosen as substitutes for theabsent female phallus would be such as appear as symbols of the penis in otherconnections as well. This may happen often enough, but is certainly not adeciding factor. It seems rather that when the fetish is instituted someprocess occurs which reminds one of the stopping of memory in traumaticamnesia. As in this latter case, the subject's interest comes to a halthalf-way, as it were; it is as though the last impression before the uncannyand traumatic one is retained as a fetish. Thus the foot or shoe owes itspreference as a fetish - or a part of it - to the circumstance that theinquisitive boy peered at the woman's genitals from below, from her legs up;fur and velvet - as has long been suspected - are a fixation of the sight ofthe pubic hair, which should have been followed by the longed-for sight of thefemale member; pieces of underclothing, which are so often chosen as a fetish,crystallize the moment of undressing, the last moment in which the woman couldstill be regarded as phallic. But I do not maintain that it is invariablypossible to discover with certainty how the fetish was determined.
一个人也许会认为，被选为缺失了的女性阴茎的器官或对象就和在其他联系中的阴茎象征物一样。这可能常常发生，但肯定不是一个决定性的因素。毋宁说迷恋物被设立在一些过程开始之后，这些过程提醒着某人那些在创伤性失忆中记忆的停止。在这后一种情况中，主体的兴趣可以说在半路上停了下来；那在离奇的和创伤性的印象之前（出现）的最后印象被当做迷恋物保留了下来。因此，脚或鞋子将它们以迷恋物——或迷恋物的一部分——的身份而受到的偏爱归功于好奇的男孩从女人的腿往上盯着她的生殖器看的情景；皮毛与丝绒——它已遭到了长期的怀疑——是对阴毛形象的固着，而窥视女性外套的强烈渴望将跟随后者而出现；那些经常被选为迷恋物贴身的衣物则结晶化了脱衣服的瞬间——这是女性仍然能够被视作拥有阴茎的最后一个瞬间。但我并不坚持始终都能够满怀确信地发现迷恋物是如何被决定的（这种观点）。
An investigation of fetishism is strongly recommended to any one who stilldoubts the existence of the castration complex or who can still believe thatfright at the sight of the female genital has some other ground - for instance,that it is derived from a supposed recollection of the trauma of birth.
一项关于恋物癖的研究将被强烈地推荐给任何对阉割情结还保持着怀疑的，以及任何依旧相信对女性生殖器形象的恐惧还有其他一些原因——比如说，它产生于一个对于出生创伤的假定回忆——的人。
For me, the explanation of fetishism had another point of theoretical interestas well. Recently, along quite speculative lines, I arrived at the propositionthat the essential difference between neurosis and psychosis was that in theformer the ego, in the service of reality, suppresses a piece of the id,whereas in a psychosis it lets itself be induced by the id to detach itselffrom a piece of reality. I returned to this theme once again later on.?But soonafter this I had reason to regret that I had ventured so far. In the analysisof two young men I learned that each - one when he was two years old and theother when he was ten - had failed to take cognizance of the death of hisbeloved father - had ‘scotomized’it - and yet neither of them had developed apsychosis. Thus a piece of reality which was undoubtedly important had beendisavowed by the ego, just as the unwelcome fact of women's castration isdisavowed in fetishists. I also began to suspect that similar occurrences inchildhood are by no means rare, and I believed that I had been guilty of anerror in my characterization of neurosis and psychosis. It is true that therewas one way out of the difficulty. My formula needed only to hold good wherethere was a higher degree of differentiation in the psychical apparatus; thingsmight be permissible to a child which would entail severe injury to an adult.
对我而言，对恋物癖的解释同样还有另一点理论上的价值。最近，沿着相当思辨的路线，我抵达了这一论点，即：神经症与精神病的本质区别在于在前者中其服务于现实的自我（ego），压制了它我(id)的一部分，然而在精神病当中，自我让其自身接受它我的诱导而使自己与现实的一部分分离了开来。我后来再次回到了这一主题上。3但在这之后，我便立即找到了懊悔自己冒险到了如此程度的理由。在对两个年轻男性的分析中我发现他们之中的任何一个——当时，其中的一个两岁而另一个十岁——都没有意识到他们亲爱的父亲的死亡——“无视了”它——而他们中任何一个都没有发展成为精神病。这样，现实中无疑很重要的一部分被自我所否认了，正如女人遭到阉割这一令人厌恶的事实被恋物者所否认一样。我同样开始怀疑类似的事件在童年期绝不会是罕见的，并且相信自己已经因为在对神经症与精神病所做的描述中的一处错误而犯下了罪错。确实存在一条走出困境的道路。在有一个能对精神器官做出更高层次的区分的地方，我的公式就仍将保持有效；那些对一个孩子而言是允许的东西，（却）可能会对一个成年人造成严重的伤害。
But further research led to another solution of the contradiction. It turnedout that the two young men had no more 'scotomized'their father's death than afetishist does the castration of women. It was only one current in their mentallife that had not recognized their father's death; there was another currentwhich took full account of that fact. The attitude which fitted in with thewish and the attitude which fitted in with reality existed side by side. In oneof my two cases this split had formed the basis of a moderately severeobsessional neurosis. The patient oscillated in every situation in life betweentwo assumptions: the one, that his father was still alive and was hindering hisactivities; the other, opposite one, that he was entitled to regard himself ashis father's successor. I may thus keep to the expectation that in a psychosisthe one current - that which fitted in with reality - would have in fact beenabsent.
但更进一步的研究产生了解决这一矛盾的另一个方法。两个年轻男人结果并没有比一个阉割女人的恋物者更加地“无视（scotomized）”他们父亲的死亡。在他们不承认父亲死亡的心理活动中，这是一个趋向；另一个趋向则更全面地考虑了那个事实。与愿望相一致的态度和与现实相一致的态度并列地存在着。在我的两个案例的一个当中，这一分裂构成了一个中度严重的强迫性神经官能症的基础。这位患者在他生活的每个情境中都在两个设想之间来回摇摆：一个就是他的父亲还活着并且在妨碍他的活动；与此相反的另一个则是他有资格将自己视为父亲的继承人。我或许因此将坚持这样一种预测，即在精神病中其中的一个趋向——与现实相一致的那个——实际上已经缺失了。
Returning to my description of fetishism, I may say that there are many andweighty additional proofs of the divided attitude of fetishists to the questionof the castration of women. In very subtle instances both the disavowal and theaffirmation of the castration have found their way into the construction of thefetish itself. This was so in the case of a man whose fetish was an athleticsupport-belt which could also be worn as bathing drawers. This piece ofclothing covered up the genitals entirely and concealed the distinction betweenthem. Analysis showed that it signified that women were castrated and that theywere not castrated; and it also allowed of the hypothesis that men werecastrated, for all these possibilities could equally well be concealed underthe belt - the earliest rudiment of which in his childhood had been thefig-leaf on a statue. A fetish of this sort, doubly derived from contraryideas, is of course especially durable. In other instances the divided attitudeshows itself in what the fetishist does with his fetish, whether in reality orin his imagination. To point out that he reveres his fetish is not the wholestory; in many cases he treats it in a way which is obviously equivalent to arepresentation of castration. This happens particularly if he has developed astrong identification with his father and plays the part of the latter; for itis to him that as a child he ascribed the woman's castration. Affection andhostility in the treatment of the fetish - which run parallel with thedisavowal and the acknowledgement of castration - are mixed in unequalproportions in different cases, so that the one or the other is more clearlyrecognizable. We seem here to approach an understanding, even if a distant one,of the behaviour of the 'coupeur de nattes' In him the need to carry out thecastration which he disavows has come to the front. His action contains initself the two mutually incompatible assertions: 'the woman has still got apenis'and 'my father has castrated the woman' Another variant, which is also aparallel to fetishism in social psychology, might be seen in the Chinese customof mutilating the female foot and then revering it like a fetish after it hasbeen mutilated. It seems as though the Chinese male wants to thank the womanfor having submitted to being castrated.
回到我对恋物癖的描述中来，我会说存在许多的和大量额外的证据来证明恋物者对女人的阉割这一问题所持的分裂态度。在非常微妙的例子中，对阉割的否认与肯定都找到了它们构造迷恋物本身的方式。在这个案例——一个男人的迷恋物是一个可以被当作游泳短裤来穿的运动员的护腰带——中也是如此。这一件服饰将生殖器完全遮盖住了，并且隐藏了它们之间的差异。分析显示它所指称的（内容）是被阉割了的女人与未被阉割的女人；它也认可了男人被阉割的假说，尽管所有这些可能性可以被同样好地掩藏在腰带之下——它在他童年时期的最初原型是一座雕像上的无花果树叶/遮羞布（fig-leaf）。这种加倍地产生于对立观念的迷恋物，肯定是特别持久有效的。在其他的案例中，分裂的态度在恋物者——无论是在现实中还是在想象中——对其迷恋物所做的事情中展现了自身。为了指出他对迷恋物的崇拜并不是事情的全部；在很多情况下，他以明显与对待阉割代理一样的方式来对待它。如果他发展了对其父亲的强烈认同并扮演了后者的角色，这就特别容易发生；这是因为作为一个孩子的他将后者视作了阉割女人的人。对迷恋物的喜爱与敌视——与对阉割的否认和承认相平行——在不同的情况下以不同的比例相混合，因此其中的一个或另一个就能更明确地被辨认出来。我们在此似乎靠近了一种尽管是遥远的理解，对“剪辫子者”（coupeur denattes）行为的理解。在他身上，去满足他所否认的阉割的需要变得明显。他的行为本身就包含了两个彼此互不相容的声言：“那个女人仍还有一根阴茎”与“我父亲阉割了那个女人”。另一个在社会心理学之中同样与恋物癖相平行的变体，或许可以在中国摧残女性的脚并在其被摧残之后把它当做一个迷恋物来崇拜的文化中看到。中国的男性似乎因为她们让她们自己听命于阉割而想向女人表示感谢。
In conclusion we may say that the normal prototype of fetishes is a man抯 penis, just as the normal prototype of inferior organsis a woman's real small penis, the clitoris.
综上所述，我们可以说迷恋物的一般原型是一根男人的阴茎，正如更低等器官的一般原型是一根女人真正的小阴茎——阴蒂一样。
——————————
注释：
[1]This interpretation was made as early as 1910, in my study on Leonardo daVinci, without any reasons being given for it.
这个解析是我早在1910年的关于列奥纳多•达芬奇（Leonardo da Vinci）的研究中做出的，但没有任何取代它的理由。
[2]I correct myself, however, by adding that I have the best reasons forsupposing that Laforgue would not say anything of the sort. It is clear fromhis own remarks that 'scotomization'is a term which derives from descriptionsof dementia praecox, which does not arise from a carrying-over ofpsycho-analytic concepts to the psychoses and which has no application to developmentalprocesses or to the formation of neuroses. In his exposition in the text of hispaper, the author has been at pains to make this incompatibility clear.
然而，通过补充我有最好的理由来假定拉弗格不会说出任何诸如此类的话，我纠正了自己。从他自己的评论中明显可以看出，“无视”是一个源自描述早发性痴呆的术语，他并非起源于精神分析学关于精神病理论的遗留物（carrying-over），并且在发展过程或神经症的形成中也没有应用。在他文章的正文的阐释中，作者为了将这个不相容（性）说清楚而费劲了心思。
[3]'Neurosis and Psychosis'(1924b) and 'The Loss of Reality in Neurosis andPsychosis'(1924e).
《神经症与精神病》（1924b）以及《在神经症与精神病中现实（性）的丧失》（1924e）。
