Takayuki Kinugasa (North America),
Elias M. da Rocha Barros (Latin America)
and Arne Jemstedt (Europe)
Inter-Regional Coordinating Co-Chair国际区间协调主席: Eva D. Papiasvili (North America)
I. INTRODUCTORY DEFINITION
1、介绍性的定义
Amae is a Japanese word in common daily usage. It is a noun form of amaeru, a verb. Both derive from an adjective, amai, which means “sweet taste.” Amaeru is a combination of a verb, eru, which means “get” or “obtain” and amai. Thus, the original meaning of amaeru is literally to obtain sweetness. In common usage, amaeru refers to behaving in a childlike, dependent fashion to elicit indulgence, to obtain what is desired: be it affection, physical closeness, emotional or actual support, or granting of a request. It is a behavior of an appeal to be indulged, and presumes a degree of familial or intimate closeness. Typically, an infant or child might engage a maternal figure or caretaker in a sweetly dependent manner to get his/her wishes granted.
娇宠(Amae)【译注:日语 甘え】是日本日常生活中经常使用的一个词汇。娇宠(Amae)是名词,它的动词形式是邀宠(amaeru)【译注:日语是 あまえる】。动词形式和名词形式都来源于其形容词形式甜蜜的(amai)【译注:日语甘い】,意思是“甜蜜的味道”。邀宠(Amaeru)是作为“得到”或“获得”之意的后缀eru加上甜蜜(amai)的动词组合。因此动词邀宠(amaeru)的字面意思是获得甜蜜。在通常的用法中,邀宠(amaeru)指的是孩子般的行为、引诱出放纵的依赖性,以获得其所需之物:无论是亲情、身体上的亲密,情感或确切的支持,还是请求一个准许,娇宠都是恳求放纵的行为,并且假定了一个家庭或亲近亲密的程度。通常而言,娇宠是婴儿或儿童可能以一种甜蜜的依赖方式与母亲或监护人建立亲密关系的行为,以获得他/她的愿望。
Amae and amaeru behaviors are seen outside of the familial environment and beyond childhood in Japanese interpersonal interactions. This might occur in close personal friendships, the intimacy of a couple relationship, the extended family, or within cohesive small groups such as classmates or teammates. It is also seen in relationships where power or status differentials exist such as teacher/student, boss/subordinate, or senior/junior colleagues. Depending on the interpersonal circumstances, the amae phenomenon is widely accepted as a signifier of the strength and soundness of a relationship on the one hand, but on the other hand, it can be perceived negatively as an indication of the person’s immaturity, self-indulgence, sense of entitlement, or lack of social awareness and common sense.
在日本人的人际交往中,娇宠和邀宠行为在家庭环境之外和童年之后都可以看到。这可能会出现在亲密的个人友谊之间、亲密的夫妻关系之间、大家庭之中、或者发生在如同学或队友这种有粘附性的小团体之中。在权力或地位差异的关系中也可以看到这种现象,如教师/学生,老板/下属,或资深/初级同事之间。根据不同的人际环境,娇宠的现象一方面作为关系强弱的能指被广泛接受,但另一方面,它可以视为一个人不成熟的、In the North American Comprehensive Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, Salman Akhtar (2009) defines Amae as a “Japanese term, which denotes an intermittent, recurring, culturally patterned interaction, in which the ordinary rules of propriety and formality are suspended, allowing people to receive and give affectionate ego support to each other” (p. 12). This definition builds on Takeo Doi’s (1971/73) definition of the term, which is further expanded on within the ego psychological terminology by Daniel Freeman (1998), to be an “interactive mutual regression in the service of the ego, which gratifies and serves the progressive intrapsychic growth and development of both participants” (Freeman, 1998, p.47). The editors of the Japanese Dictionary of Psychoanalysis (Okonogi, K, Kitayama, O, Ushijima, S, Kano, R, Kinugasa et al., 2002) also build on Doi’s definition and point to the complexities of preverbally rooted emotional dependence contained in the dynamic underpinnings of amae.
在北美精神分析综合字典中,Salman Akhtar(2009)将娇宠定义为“日本术语,指的是一种间歇性的,一再发生的、文化方面的模式互动,在这种模式之中,悬空了一般性的礼仪礼节规则,允许人们彼此接受和给予对自我的深情支持”(p.12)。这个定义是建立在土居健郎(Takeo Doi)(1971/73)对这一术语定义之上,土居健郎对自我心理术语的定义进一步被Daniel Freeman(1998)进一步扩展为“在服务于自我之时的彼此互动退行,以满足和服务于参与双方心灵内部的不断成长和发展”(Freeman,1998,p.47)。日本精神分析词典的编辑们(Okonogi, K, Kitayama, O, Ushijima, S, Kano, R, Kinugasa et al., 2002)对这一术语的定义也建立在土居健郎的定义之上,并指出了在娇宠的动态基础之中所涵容的、根深蒂固的情绪依赖的复杂性。
No known dictionary or glossary in any of the IPA languages in Europe and Latin America carry amae and the term has remained largely unknown until now to the wider psychoanalytic public. This entry builds and expands on all the above.
在任何欧洲与拉丁美洲语言的IPA字典或词汇中都没有娇宠这个条目,同时,到目前为之,这个词很大程度上仍旧不被更广泛的精神分析公众所知。本条目建立并扩展了以上的情况。
II. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
2、概念的发展
As a psychological phenomenon, the concept of amae was introduced and emphasized by Takeo Doi in his 1971 publication “The Anatomy of Dependence,” which was translated in 1973 for Western audiences. He described a variety of amae behaviors in Japanese social and clinical interactions, and advanced the idea of the essential importance of the concept of amae in understanding Japanese psychology. He translated amae as ‘dependence or emotional dependence’ (1973) and defined amaeru to mean, ‘to depend and presume upon another’s benevolence’ (1973). He considers it to indicate ‘helplessness and the desire to be loved’ and the expression of the ‘need to be loved,’ and sees it as equivalent to dependency needs. He sees its prototype in the psychology of the infant in relationship to the mother, not a newborn infant, but the infant who has already realized that its mother exists independently of itself (Doi, 1973). In his later publication, Doi (1989) extends the dynamic formulation of amae:
土居健朗在他1971出版的《甘えの構造 Amae no kōzō》【译注:英文版为The Anatomy of Dependence,中文第二版为《日本人的心理结构》】中介绍并强调了作为一种心理现象的娇宠概念,这本书在1973年翻译给了西方读者。他描述了日本社会和临床互动中的各种各样的娇宠,以及娇宠的概念在理解日本人心理的重要先进思想。他将娇宠(amae)翻译为“依赖或情绪的依赖”(1973)。并将邀宠(amaeru)定义为,“依赖和指望别人的善行(benevolence)”(1973)。他认为这种行为显示了“在无助感之中的依赖需求”并表达了“被爱之需求”的治疗需求,并认为,该行为等同于依赖的需要。他认为,这个存在yu于婴儿与母亲关系中的心理原型,并不是新生儿,而是已经意识到母亲独立于自己存在的一个婴儿(Doi,1973)。土居在后来的出版物(1989)中拓展了娇宠的动力学模型:
“Another important thing about the concept of amae is that though it primarily indicates a content state of mind when one's need for love is reciprocated by another's love, it may also refer to that very need for love because one cannot always count on another's love, much as one would wish to do so. Hence it follows that the state of frustration in amae, the various phases of which can be described by a number of Japanese words, may also be referred to amae and in fact it often is so called, since obviously amae is more keenly felt as a desire in frustration than in fulfillment. It is related to this usage that we can talk of two kinds of amae, a primitive one which is sure of a willing recipient and a convoluted one which is not sure if there is such a recipient. The former kind is childlike, innocent and restful: the latter is childish, willful and demanding: to put it simply, good and bad amae, so to speak…” (Doi, 1989, p. 349).
“娇宠概念的另一个重要方面是,虽然它主要是指当一个爱的需求来自于他人之爱的回报时的心智状态的内容,但是它所指的也可能是非常地需要爱,因为一个人不可能总是指望着别人的爱,尽管人们希望这样去做。因此,娇宠之后随之而来的是挫折的状态,一些日本文字可以描述娇宠的各个阶段,同时也提及了娇宠,并且,经常就是这么讲的,因为很明显,娇宠是一种更深切的感受,在实施的过程中感受到了挫折中的欲求。我们可以谈一谈与之相关的娇宠两种用法,最原始的娇宠是确信(有着一位)愿意的接受者,复杂的娇宠是不确定是否已有一个如此的接受者。前一种娇宠是天真的、无辜的、闲适的:后者是幼稚、任性的和苛求的:简单地说,就是所谓…好的娇宠和坏的娇宠。”(Doi,1989,p.349)。
Doi’s assertion that amae, i.e. emotional dependency, distinguishes Japanese psychology in essential and unique ways was met by both enthusiastic acceptance and skeptical criticism. It spawned debates such as: In what specific way should Japanese psychology be seen? Does Doi propose that the Japanese character is essentially dependent? How does the concept of amae relate to existing psychological and psychoanalytic theories and practices? How does amae relate to the understanding of universal human development? How does the concept of amae contribute to specific new developments in the theory and practice of psychoanalytic understanding?
土居健朗声称,娇宠,即情感依赖,通过所遭遇到的热情接纳和怀疑批判区分了日本心理学本质的和独特的方式。这一声称催生了大量的辩论,例如:应该以什么样的具体方式让日本心理学看见?土居健朗是否认为日本人的性格本质上是依赖的?娇宠的概念与现有心理学或心理动力学理论与实践之间是如何相关联的?娇宠与理解普遍的人类发展的关系是怎样的?娇宠的概念是如何为理解特定的心理动力学的理论与实践的新发展作出贡献?
III. SOCIO-CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
3、社会文化的观点
Erik Erikson (1950) described how varied and specific societal and cultural influences result in different modes of adaptation during the process of human psychological growth and development. He expanded on Freud’s biologically based psychosexual developmental stages to include psychosocial stages of human development beyond oedipal resolution, extending them over the life cycle. Doi’s concept of amae and its significance in understanding the specific nature of Japanese psychology can also be appraised in this context.
弗洛伊德基于生物学的心理发展阶段,超越了人类发展的心理社会阶段,并将其延伸到生命周期之中,同时也包括了俄狄浦斯阶段的消除。土居健朗的娇宠概念,及其理解日本心理学之特殊性的意义也可以在这样的情景中评估。
Erik Erikson(1950)描述了各种不同的特殊社会与文化如何在人类心理成长和发展过程中对不同适应模式产生了影响。他扩展了Many social scientists and cross-cultural observers have noted the particularity of Japanese society and Japanese psychological adaptations. Doi’s concept of amae adds another dimension to this discourse. A few important characteristics noted as specific to Japanese society and culture include:
许多社会科学家和跨文化观察者注意到日本社会和日本人心理适应的特殊性。土居健朗的娇宠概念在这一论述中增加了另一个维度。包括日本社会和文化在内的一些重要特征包括:
Hierarchically organized social relationships;
等级森严的社会关系;
Group orientation over individual distinction;
集体目标大于个体差异
Separation of private and public, inner and outside relationships in thoughts, feelings and conduct;
公与私的分离、思想上内外关系的分离,情绪感受与行为的分离
Emphasis on shame (generated by outside judgment) and guilt (expression of internal judgment);
强调(由外界判断产生的)羞耻和(表达内部判断的)内疚;
Avoidance of conflict and the value of harmony;
避免冲突以及和谐的价值观;
Indulgent, responsive and permissive parental style during infancy and early childhood, followed by increasingly stringent social role assignment and behavioral control in later years.
父母在婴幼儿期纵容的、反应灵敏的和放任的教养方式,在以后的岁月里随之而来的是越来越严格的社会角色委派和行为控制。
Widely recognized and keenly observed by cultural anthropologists such as Ruth Benedict (1946) and the historian Edwin O. Reischauer (1977), and articulated further by Chie Nakane, the best-known Japanese anthropologist outside Japan (1970), the vertical hierarchical nature of most Japanese relationships is omnipresent. Related to and intertwined with it, the characteristics cited above are the cultural and psychological echo of four centuries of a feudal system of rigid political and socio-economic class stratification. Modernization with the influence of the West started in the late 19th Century and accelerated after World War II with the new democratic government institutions and many societal changes in political, economic and technological public life. However, traditional cultural values and characteristics endure in contemporary Japanese life as psychological undercurrents. Reischauer (1977) notes the Japanese adaptive capacity for change and recognizes much human commonality between the East and the West. Dean C. Barnlund (1975), in his comparative cultural analysis of U.S. and Japanese adhesiveness of core cultural values transmitted as normative in a society, refers to amae as a representative of the “cultural unconscious.”
无意识”的典型代表。
文化人类学家鲁思·本尼迪克特(Ruth Benedict)和历史学家埃德温·赖肖尔(Edwin O. Reischauer)(1977)(对日本社会)的广泛认可和敏锐观察,以及著名的日本人类学家中根千枝(1970)进一步阐明了日本无所不在的纵向社会人际关系。这些都相互关联交织在一起,上述特征与四个世纪以来僵化的政治和社会经济阶层分层的封建制度在文化和心理上的相互交映,并与之交织在一起。西方影响下的现代化始于十九世纪末,二战之后,加速了新的民主政府机构以及许多政治、经济和技术公共生活的变革。然而,传统文化的价值和忍者的特质是当代日本人生活的心理潜流。赖肖尔(1977)记录了日本人在改变和承认东西方人类共性中的适应能力。Dean C. Barnlund(1975),在对美国和日本的文化的比较分析中指出,在社会的规范传播中,粘附着核心文化价值的娇宠是“文化Crucial in understanding amae from this perspective is the child-rearing practice that provides constant physical closeness, indulgence, responsiveness, keenly empathetic maternal care, and the availability of other caregivers around the child. Because of the limited space of island life, the propinquity of other people and the necessity to live side by side is a condition of life in Japan. Not only the extended family, but also neighbors and the surrounding community are introduced to a child very early on. Any adult in the vicinity is called oji-san, uncle, or oba-san, aunt, and older children are referred to onei-san, elder sister, or onii-san, elder brother. They constitute potential caregivers in a child’s life, promoting a sense of safety in belonging to the group. Alan Roland (1991) strongly contrasted the concept of the “familial self” predominant in the Japanese psyche, which is rooted in the subtle emotional hierarchical relationships of the family and group, with the Western “individualized self.” Reischauer (1977) observes that the Japanese are not quite as attached to the family as such but more to surrounding groups. This might suggest a “group self” in the sense that a child very early on identifies and internalizes his place in a group.
安全感。Alan Roland(1991)强有力地对比了西方的“个体自我”的与“家庭自我”的概念,在日本精神中占主导地位的后者,植根于家庭和集团中的微妙情感层次关系之中的。Reischauer(1977)指出,日本人不是那么的粘附于家庭,而更多的粘附于周遭的团体。这可能意味着,在某种意义上,一个孩子很早就确定了一个“团体自我”,并内化了他在团体中的位置。
从这个角度来看,理解娇宠的关键的在于抚养孩子的做法,这些做法包括,始终如一的身体上的亲密、溺爱、灵敏的回应,敏锐善解人意的母爱,以及孩子周围其他照顾者的可用性。由于单独生活空间的有限性,日本人的生活状态是:与其他亲近在一起并且必须肩并肩地一起生活。很早就向孩子介绍的,不仅是大家庭的成员,而且包括邻居以及周围社区的情况。邻近的成年人被称为叔叔(oji-san),阿姨(oba-san),年龄较大的儿童被称为姐姐(onei-san),或者哥哥(onii-san)。他们构成了孩子生活中潜在的照顾者,促进了归属于团体的Illustrative of this dynamic is a Japanese traditional ritual celebration called Hichi- Go-San. Children of the ages 2 to 3, 4 to 5, and 6 to 7 are celebrated in traditional costumes and taken to the local shrine in the local community. They are given sweets and toys as gifts in a collective celebration of a passage of childhood.