杨瑞凤 刘文婷 译
A Theory of Personality Change
Eugene T. Gendlin, Ph.D.
University of Chicago
Chapter four in: Personality Change,
Philip Worchel & Donn Byrne (Eds.), New York: John Wiley & Sons (1964)
I am grateful to Malcolm A. Brown for many helpful and clarifying discussions,
which greatly aided the process of writing this chapter, and to Dr. Sidney M.
Jourard, Marilyn Geist, Dr. William Wharton, Joe T. Hart, David Le Roy, and Ruth
Nielsenn for their valuable comments and editorial help.
尤金 T 簡德林博士
美國芝加哥大學
第四章:人格變化,
Philip Worchel & Donn Byrne(合編) ,紐約: John Wiley & Sons出版( 1964 )
我感謝Malcolm A. Brown許多有益的討論和澄清,這大大有助於本章的寫作過程,也感謝Dr. Sidney M. Jourard, Marilyn
Geist, Dr. William Wharton, Joe T. Hart, David Le Roy, 和 Ruth Nielsenn的寶貴意見和編輯上的幫助。
After a few pages which state two main problems and two observations, a theory
of personality change will be presented. The theory is another step in the
continuing work on "experiencing" (Gendlin, 1957, 1962b; Gendlin and Zimring,
1955). The theory of experiencing provides a frame of reference in which
theoretical considerations are viewed in a new way.
經過幾頁陳述兩個主要問題和兩個觀察,一個關於人格變化的理論將要面世。該理論是對“體驗”的持續研究中邁出的又一步(簡德林, 1957 , 1962b ; 簡德林和Zimring
, 1955)。這個關於體驗的理論,提供了一個以新的方式看待理論思考的參考框架。
A theory requires terms, defined words with which to specify observations, and a
formulation of a chain of theoretical hypotheses. The theory presented here is
developed within this basic structure, and special notice should be given to the
new terms which are introduced and defined. These terms are pointed out and
numbered. (We can have a genuine theory only with carefully defined terms, and
only by using defined terms can we later modify, improve, and extend theory.)
一個理論需要術語,定義來具體說明觀察結果,以及一連串理論假設的建構。這裏提出的理論是在這一基本框架上發展出來的,並應特別注意這裏介紹和界定的新術語。這些術語被命名和編號。
(我們可以有一個只有仔細界定的術語的真正的理論,並且只有通過使用定義的術語,我們可以以後修改,改進和擴展該理論。 )
PROBLEMS AND OBSERVATIONS存在的問題及意見
In most theories, the static content-and-structure aspects of personality are
primary, and therefore personality change is an especially difficult problem.
The present theoretical frame of reference is especially suited to account for
change, since it employs concepts that apply to the experiencing process, and to
the relationships between that process and content aspects of personality.
在大多數理論,人格的穩定的內容-結構面向是首要的,因此人格變化是一個特別困難的問題。本理論的指涉框架,尤其適用於變化,因為它使用的概念,適用於體驗過程,並且適用於這一過程和人格內容面向之間的關係。
Personality Theory and Personality Change人格理論與人格變化
Personality theories have chiefly been concerned with the factors that determine
and explain different individuals' personalities as they are, and the factors
which have brought about the given personality. What is called personality
maintains its character despite circumstances. Aspects of an individual fail to
puzzle us if his current situation explains them. We do not even attribute it to
his personality when an individual shows all sorts of undesirable behavior under
overwhelmingly bad circumstances, or when he becomes likable and secure under
the influence of events which (as we say) would make almost anybody likable and
secure. What we do attribute to personality is the reverse: when an individual
remains likable and secure under overwhelmingly bad circumstances, and when an
individual remains afraid and in pain despite apparent opportunities and good
luck. Thus, it could be said that, far from explaining personality change, our
theories have been endeavoring to explain and define personality as that which
tends not to change when one would expect change.
人格理論主要關注,確定和解釋不同個體的人格的因素,和哪些因素帶來了特定的人格。所謂的人格即不管環境如何,都保持其特質不變。如果環境可以解釋個人的情況,那麼這個部分就不會困擾我們。如果一個人在淹沒性的糟糕環境下表現出各種不良行為,又或者當他處於(比如說)會使幾乎所有人喜歡和安全的事件的影響下,變得令人喜歡和安全,我們甚至不將它歸類為人格。我們歸屬於人格的部分剛好相反:當一個人在淹沒性的糟糕環境下仍然可愛和安全,當一個人仍然感到害怕和痛苦,儘管有明顯的機遇和好運。因此,可以說,我們的理論不只解釋人格改變,而是致力於解釋和界定人格為當人們預期有變化的時候卻不改變的那一部分。
To some extent this view of personality as factors which resist change is
justified. We usually think of a person as involving identity and continuity
through time. However, the contents and patterns in the theories are a type of
explanatory concept which renders change impossible by definition. The structure
of personality (in theories) is formulated in such a way that it is said to
maintain itself against all new experience which might alter it. The individual
is viewed as a structured entity with defined contents. These explanatory
concepts can explain only why an individual cannot change.
在一定程度上這種視人格為抵制變革的因素的觀點是有道理的。我們通常會想到一個人,包括他的身份和一段時間的延續性。然而,理論的內容和模式是一種解釋性的概念,就定義來看變化是不可能的。(理論上)人格的結構是以這樣一種方式制定,就是說,不管任何有可能改變它的新經驗,只保持自己。個體被視為一種結構實體,有著界定的內容。這些解釋性的概念只可以解釋為什麼一個人不能改變。
Personality theory, then, has concentrated upon the factors which explain why an
individual is as he is, how he has become so, and how these factors maintain him
so, despite circumstances, fortunes, and opportunities. Such explanatory
concepts of content and structure tell us what prevents an individual from being
changed by experience, what factors will force him forever (by dennition) to
miss or distort everything that might change him unless (as we commonly say) his
personality (somehow) changes first.
然後,人格理論集中於解釋為什麼一個人是他這樣的人,使他變成這樣的因素,以及這些因素如何保持他如此,不論環境,財富和機會。這種解釋性的概念的內容和結構根據經驗告訴我們是什麼防止個別被改變,有哪些因素會迫使他永遠錯過或扭曲一切可能會改變他的,除非(正如我們通常說)他的人格(不知怎麼地)一開始就改變。
Since structure and content do tend to maintain themselves and distort present
experience, we can account for personality change only if we can show exactly
how this change resistance yields to change.
由於結構和內容往往維持自己和歪曲當前的體驗,只有當我們能夠證明這種對於變化的抵抗究竟如何屈服於變化,我們才可以解釋人格變化。
Theories in the past have not wanted to portray personality change as
impossible. On the contrary, the theories assert that change does actually
occur. The chief personality theories have sprung from psychotherapy--that is to
say (when psychotherapy is successful), from ongoing personality change.
過去的理論還沒有想要描繪人格改變是不可能的。與此相反,理論斷言,變化的確發生。主流的人格理論源于心理治療-這就是說(當心理治療是成功的),源於正在進行的人格改變。
Quite paradoxically, as personality change occurs before their eyes and with
their participation, therapists find their minds formulating what has been
wrong. Even the individual, himself, as he searches into his feelings and
expresses these, speaks as if the whole endeavor were to investigate what has
been wrong--what has constituted the aspects of his personality which have
prevented ordinary adaption and change. And, usually, such an individual becomes
aware of much which, he then says, has been true all along but of which he has
not been aware.
很奇怪的,因為人格改變是發生在治療師看到和參與之前,他們發現自己的理論建構是錯誤的。即使是個體自己也會意料不到,當他探索自己的感情並表達出來,全力調查出錯的地方---是什麼構成了他的人格那些阻礙正常適應和改變的部分。而且,通常情況下,個體察覺到的越來越多,他會說,其實一直都如此,只是他沒有察覺而已。
Thus, psychotherapy regularly gives us this observation of an individual
"uncovering" or "becoming aware" of these stubborn contents and his previous
inability to be aware of them. So well have the various personality theories
formulated these contents and this self maintaining and censoring structure
that, while we have concepts to explain what makes an individual as he is, we
cannot formulate how he can change. Yet all the time the individual has been
changing just these "uncovered" factors which we formulate in terms of static
explanatory contents.[1]
因此,心理治療定期讓我們觀察到個人“揭露”或“開始意識到”這些頑固的內容和他以前無法瞭解的。各種人格理論如此出色地建構了這些內容和這種自我維護和檢查結構,雖然我們能用概念來解釋是什麼讓一個人成為他,我們無法解釋他如何才能夠改變。然而,一直以來個人一直在改變的是這些“揭露”的事實,建構於靜態的解釋性的內容。
[ 1 ]
I will now present in more detail the two main ways in which much current
formulation of personality makes change appear theoretically impossible. I call
these two impossibilities "the repression paradigm," and "the content
paradigm."[2]
目前很多人格建構理論使得在理論上變化出現是不可能的。我現在將更詳細地討論兩種理論方式,我稱這兩個不可能為“壓抑範式”和“內容示範。” [ 2 ]
Since these theories, nevertheless, also assert that change does occur, I will
then take up the two main ways in which theories attempt to account for change.
I will try to show that theories usually cite two observations: a feeling
process; and a certain personal relationship.
由於這些理論仍然斷言變化的確發生了,我將接下來討論兩個試圖解釋變化的理論方式。我將努力表明,理論通常引用兩種觀察:一種是感覺的進程; 一種是某段人際關係。