竞争的父母崩溃或死亡对俄狄浦斯胜利的影响
Harwant Gill 文
mints 编译(一校稿)
Gill H. S. (1987). Effects of oedipal triumph caused by collapse or death of the rival parent. The International journal of psycho-analysis, 68 ( Pt 2), 251–260.
弗洛伊德在1897年的自我分析中发现了他对母亲的爱和对父亲的嫉妒(Freud,1897)。弗洛伊德后来将这种以父母为中心的无意识情感簇命名为“俄狄浦斯情结(Oedipus complex)”(Freud,1910)。从那时起,俄狄浦斯情结理论关注的重点大都是孩子的本能驱动力,对于环境对内在心灵的俄狄浦斯冲突的发展及其解决之贡献的关注相对较少。这种批评最早是由马林诺夫斯基(1927)提出的。他提出的反对意见认为,在某些文明中不会发现俄狄浦斯情结。
The present paper is limited to the Western culture, and assumes that the oedipal triangularity necessarily invests the two parents with power to influence the course of oedipal development and its resolution. It is intended to illustrate the hitherto little discussed effect of oedipal triumph, following the collapse or death of the rival parent. At first, it reviews some of the literature relating to parental influence on the child's oedipal development in order to counterpoise the greater emphasis in psychoanalysis on the intrapsychic life of the child. Having prepared the reader for a balanced view of child development, discussion is introduced of environmental hazards befalling the oedipal rival, and the consequent oedipal triumph. The intrapsychic effects of such a triumph are then discussed, followed by three clinical examples. The final section of the paper attempts to clarify the relevance of some clinical concepts found useful in the analysis of such patients.
精神分析对孩子内在精神生活的重要性。在让读者对儿童发展有了一个平衡的看法后,讨论了俄狄浦斯竞争对手所面临的环境危害,以及由此带来的俄狄浦斯胜利。然后讨论了这一胜利对内在精神的影响,并列举了三个临床例子。论文的最后一部分试图澄清一些临床概念的相关性,这些概念在分析此类患者时很有用。
本文仅限于西方文化,并假设俄狄浦斯情结三角的性质必然赋予父母双方影响俄狄浦斯情结之发展过程及其解决的权力。本文旨在说明当竞争的父母崩溃或死亡之后对俄狄浦斯胜利的影响,(该议题)迄今为止很少被讨论。首先,本文回顾了一些和父母影响孩子俄狄浦斯之发育有关的文献,这些文献平衡了PARENTAL EFFECT UPON THE COURSE OF OEDIPAL DEVELOPMENT
1、父母对俄狄浦斯发育过程的影响
Freud considered the relevance of parental behaviour to the development of oedipal feelings. For example: 'his [father's] numerous illnesses were bound to have increased her [Dora's] affection for him. In some of these illnesses he been so proud of the early growth of her intelligence that he had made her his confidante while she was still a child' (Freud, 1905, p. 57). Again: 'children often react in their Oedipus attitude to a stimulus coming from their parents, who are frequently led in their preferences by difference of sex, so that the father will choose his daughter and the mother her son as a favourite, or in case of a cooling-off in the marriage, as a substitute for a love-object that has lost its value' (Freud, 1916, p. 207). However, Freud's underemphasis of parental contribution to the child's oedipal development can be seen in his interpretation of Sophocles' Oedipus. He did not mention Laius' crime in his summary of the myth, and after abandoning the seduction theory, ignored his patients' fathers in the case histories. A number of writers (e.g. Bernstein, 1976); (Ross, 1982) have offered a different interpretation of Sophocles' play. According to them, it is the action of King Laius, the father, and not that of Oedipus, the son, that sets into motion the tragic chain of events. As Ross (1982, p. 189) has pointed out: 'Repeatedly Freud neglected the familial reality lurking behind their [patients'] psychopathology, ascribing the latter mainly to the workings of fantasy'.
婚姻变淡的情况下,作为失去价值的爱情对象的替代品”(Freud, 1916, p. 207)。然而,弗洛伊德在对索福克勒斯的俄狄浦斯的解读中可以看出,他对父母对孩子俄狄浦发育的贡献不够重视。他在总结神话故事时没有提到底比斯国王拉伊俄斯(Laius)的罪行,在放弃诱惑理论后,在案例历史中忽视了他的病人的父亲。许多作家(如伦纳德·伯恩斯坦,1976);(Ross,1982)对索福克勒斯的剧作提出了不同的解读。根据他们的说法,是父亲拉伊俄斯国王的行为,而不是儿子俄狄浦斯的行为,引发了一连串的悲剧。正如罗斯(1982年,第189页)所指出的:“弗洛伊德一再忽视隐藏在他们(患者)精神病理学背后的家庭现实,将后者主要归因于幻想的运作。”
弗洛伊德认为父母的行为与俄狄浦斯情结的发展有关。例如:“他(父亲)的许多疾病注定会增加她(多拉)对他的感情。在其中一些疾病中,他为她的智力早期增长感到骄傲,以至于在她还是个孩子的时候,他就把她当作了自己的知己”(Freud, 1905, p. 57)。再次强调:“孩子们经常对来自父母的刺激做出俄狄浦斯式的反应,父母的偏好往往受到性别差异的影响,因此父亲会选择自己的女儿、母亲会选择她的儿子作为最爱,或者在