译者：卢毅
译自德语版《弗洛伊德著作全集》（G.W. XIII.393-402）
笔者声明：转载请务必注明出处。
http://site.douban.com/143842/widget/notes/7031792/note/525456146/
俄狄浦斯情结总是越发向人们揭示它作为童年早期性欲期核心现象的重要性。它在这之后落幕，服从于压抑，并且如我们所说，随之而来的是潜伏期。然而下面这点仍不清楚：让它消逝的是什么？分析似乎教导我们：是突发的令人痛苦的失望。想要一直得到父亲偏爱的小女孩，必然会在某次受到父亲的严厉惩罚，并且感到自己从所有天堂跌落。将母亲视为自己个人财产的男孩，则会有这样的经历：她把爱与关怀从他那里移到了一个新生儿身上。由于强调了这种与情结内容相违背的痛苦经验不可避免，这种考察深化了这种影响的价值。即便没有像上述示例那样特别的事情突然发生，所期待的满足的缺失和想要孩子的愿望持续受挫，都必然会让小小的被爱者离弃他无望的倾向。是其失败、其内在的不可能性让俄狄浦斯情结消逝。
另一种见解会说：当其消解的时刻到来时，俄狄浦斯情结必然会落幕，就如恒齿往外冒时乳齿脱落那样。由于大部分人类个体都会经历俄狄浦斯情结，因此它是一种由遗传决定和设定的现象，当紧接下来的那个被预先决定的发展阶段介入时，它就必然按照程序消逝。因此，这因为什么缘由发生或是否根本找不到这个缘由都不重要。
这两种见解的合理性人们都无法驳斥。然而它们彼此相容，个体发生学与看得更远的种系发生学有并存的空间。同样，整个个体确实在出生时就注定死亡，并且他的器官组件可能含有他将因何死亡的暗示。然而，这既定的程序是如何运行的，偶然的伤害是通过哪种途径利用（生理）倾向的，追究这些仍然是有价值的。
下面这种觉察再次突显了我们的意义：儿童的性欲发展一直进行到某个时期，生殖器在该时期已经担任了主导性的角色。但这生殖器只是男性的，更确切地说就是阴茎，女性生殖器依然未被发现。这个与俄狄浦斯情结期同时的阳具期（phallische Phase），它并未进一步发展到最终的生殖器组织（Genitalorganisation），而是走向没落并由潜伏期所取代。不过，它的结局却以典型的方式并依赖经常复发的事件而实现。
当（男）孩子把兴趣放到他的生殖器上时，这点就会因为大量用手玩弄生殖器而暴露，并且之后他一定会有这样的经验：成年人不允许这种行为。人们会把如此重要的一部分从他那里剥夺掉，这种威胁会多多少少明显、多多少少粗暴地出现。阉割威胁（Kastrationsdrohung）大部分出于女性之口，她们通常会通过下面这种方式来强化她们的权威：她们以父亲或者医生为靠山，来保障她们实行惩罚。在一些情形中，通过宣告切除主动的、有罪的手而非被动的阴茎，女人们对恐吓做了一种象征性的缓和。尤为经常发生的是：小男孩受到阉割威胁的恐吓，不是因为他用手玩弄阴茎，而是因为他每晚尿床。照料者们会把这夜间的不能自制视为用手猛玩阴茎的结果和证据，而他们很可能是有道理的。无论如何，持续的尿床应与成人的遗精相提并论，它是同一种生殖器兴奋的证据，这种兴奋迫使这个时期的孩子手淫。
现在的主张是：儿童的阳具性生殖器组织是因阉割威胁而消逝的。然而这不是一蹴而就的，也不是不需要进一步影响的发生。男孩起初对威胁既不相信也不恐惧。精神分析将新的价值赋予了下面这两种经验，它们对于所有孩子都不可避免，并且应该通过它们来为更有价值的身体部分的丧失做准备：起初是暂时的、后来在某一次最终实现的断奶；以及每天都需要的与肠道内容物的分离。然而，人们看不出这些经验在阉割威胁的关头起了作用。只是在有了一种新的经验后，孩子才开始考虑阉割的可能，尽管如此还是犹豫不决、不情不愿，而且并未放弃缩小自身观察有效范围的努力。
最终让孩子的不相信破灭的，是对女性生殖器的观察。只要一位小女孩的生殖器区映入他的眼帘，那对其拥有阴茎而感到骄傲的孩子，就必然会相信与他如此相似的存在者缺少阴茎。自身阴茎的丧失同样由此而可以想见，阉割威胁事后发挥了作用。
我们不可像进行威胁的照料者们那样目光短浅，也不该忽视儿童的性生活在这个时候完全没有彻底成熟。可以证实，他处在对双亲的俄狄浦斯态度中，手淫只是附属于情结的生殖器卸载（genitale Abfuhr），并且后面的整个生涯都会感谢这种关联的重要性。俄狄浦斯情结为孩子提供了两种满足的可能性：一种主动的，一种被动的。他可以用多种方式取代父亲并像他那样与母亲交往，父亲在此就被觉得是一种障碍；或者他想取代母亲而被父亲所爱，在此母亲就成了多余的。令人满意的爱的交流[性交]（Liebesverkehr）关键何在，孩子对此只有不确切的设想，但阴茎肯定在其中扮演了一个角色，因为他的器官感受证明了这一点。对女人阴茎的怀疑此时还未发生。对阉割的可能性的接受，对女人被阉割了的洞见，现在使得从俄狄浦斯情结获得满足的两种可能性都告终了。二者都带来了阴茎的丧失：在男性的可能性中，是作为惩罚；在女性的可能性中，是作为前提。当在俄狄浦斯情结的领域获得满足要以阴茎为代价时，在对身体这部分的自恋兴趣和对双亲对象的力比多投注之间就必然发生冲突。在这种冲突中，获胜的通常是第一种力量，孩子的自我离开了俄狄浦斯情结。
我在另一处阐述了这是通过哪种途径发生的。对象投注被放弃了，并且被认同所替代。被内投（introjizierte）进自我中的父亲权威或双亲权威在此构成了超我的核心。超我借用了父亲的严厉，将他的伦乱禁忌永久化了，并由此确保自我免于力比多对象投注的返回。附属于俄狄浦斯情结的力比多趋向一部分被去性化和升华了——这可能是在每种认同的转化中发生的——，另一部分目的受到抑制并转化成了温情的兴奋。整个过程一方面挽救了生殖器，使其免于丧失的危险；另一方面使其麻痹，取消了其功能。现在打断儿童性欲发展的潜伏期借此登场。
我看不出任何理由拒绝把自我离开俄狄浦斯情结称为一种‘压抑’，尽管后来的压抑大部分是在超我的参与下进行的，而超我在此才刚刚形成。但上述过程不只是一种压抑，如果它得以理想地实现，就等于情结的破灭和消除。不难设想，我们在此从未撞见正常与病态之间绝对严格的分界。如果自我实际上只达到对情结的一种压抑，那么后者就会无意识地保留在它我（Es）中，并且会在之后表现出其致病性的效果。
分析的观察让人们得以认出或推出在阳具组织、俄狄浦斯情结、阉割威胁、超我形成和潜伏期之间的关系。这些关系为俄狄浦斯情结因阉割威胁而消逝的论断提供了理据。但问题并未因此得到解决，依然存在一种理论思辨的空间，而这种思辨或将颠覆既得的结论，或可将其推入一种新的光景中。不过，在沿着这条路前进之前，我们必须转向下面这个问题，它是在我们迄今为止的探讨中提出的，并且长期被丢在一边。正如得到明确表述的那样，上述过程只是在男孩那里发生的。相应的发展如何在小女孩那里实现？
令人费解的是，我们在这方面的材料变得远为模糊不清和残缺不全。女性也发展出了一种俄狄浦斯情结，一种超我和一种潜伏期。人们也可以宣称女性有一种阳具组织和一种阉割情结吗？答案是肯定的，不过和男孩那里不完全一样。女性主义对性别平等的要求在这里走不远，（生理）形态学上的不同必然在精神发展的差异性中得到表达。把拿破仑的一句话稍作变动——解剖学是命运。女孩的阴蒂起初完全和阴茎一样活动，不过当（女）孩子在与男性玩伴的比较中，会发觉它‘变短了’，并且感到这是受歧视的事实和低价值感（Minderwertigkeit）的根源。她还能暂且用这样一种期待来安慰自己：等她长大以后，会获得和男孩一样大的‘挂件’。女人的男性情结在这里岔了出来。女孩没有将其目前的缺失理解为性别特征，而是用下面这种设想加以解释：她从前曾一度拥有一根一样大的阴茎，而后来因为阉割丧失了。她似乎不会把这个结论推广到其他的、成年的女性身上，而是指望她们有一根大而完整的、也就是男性的阴茎。因此，本质性的不同就在于：女孩将阉割作为既成的事实加以接受，男孩则担心实施阉割的可能。
由于未受到阉割威胁，也就缺少了构建超我和打断幼儿生殖器组织的一个有力动机。与男孩那里相比，这些变化更多是教育、外部恐吓——以她将不再被爱相威胁——的结果。女孩的俄狄浦斯情结远比年幼的阴茎携带者（Penisträgers）的俄狄浦斯情结更单一，根据我的经验，它很少超出对母亲的取代和对父亲的女性态度。对阴茎的放弃与一种补偿的尝试并非不相容。人们可以说，沿着一个象征性的等式，女孩从阴茎滑向了孩子，她的俄狄浦斯情结在下面这个长期保持的愿望中达到顶点：从父亲那里得到一个孩子作为礼物，为他生一个孩子。人们有这样一种印象：由于这个愿望从未实现，俄狄浦斯情结就被长久放弃了。拥有一根阴茎和拥有一个孩子，这两个愿望在无意识中继续得到很强的投注，并且帮助女性存在者为她们后来的性别角色做准备。人们可能将其与阴茎的萎缩（Verkümmerung）扯到一起的性冲动的施虐成分强度较弱这一点，使得直接的性趋向更容易转化为目的受抑制的温情趋向。总体而言，必须承认我们在女孩发展过程方面的见地不令人满意、残缺不全且模糊不清。
我并不怀疑这里所描述的俄狄浦斯情结、性恐吓（阉割威胁）、超我形成和潜伏期登场之间的时间和因果关系属于典型，但我无意宣称这是唯一可能的类型。这些过程在时间顺序和相互关联上的变化对于个体的发展而言将是富有意义的。
自从O•兰克关于‘创伤与出生’的有趣研究出版后，人们再也无法不做进一步探讨就接受本项小研究的结论，即男孩的俄狄浦斯情结因阉割情结而消逝。不过在我看来，今天就进行这项探讨为时尚早，在此批判或考察兰克的见解或许也不合时宜。
To an ever-increasing extent the Oedipus complex reveals its importance as the central phenomenon of the sexual period of early childhood. After that, its dissolution takes place; it succumbs to repression, as we say, and is followed by the latency period. It has not yet become clear, however, what it is that brings about its destruction. Analyses seem to show that it is the experience of painful disappointments. The little girl likes to regard herself as what her father loves above all else; but the time comes when she has to endure a harsh punishment from him and she is cast out of her fool’s paradise. The boy regards his mother as his own property; but he finds one day that she has transferred her love and solicitude to a new arrival. Reflection must deepen our sense of the importance of those influences, for it will emphasize the fact that distressing experiences of this sort, which act in opposition to the content of the complex, are inevitable. Even when no special events occur, like those we have mentioned as examples, the absence of the satisfaction hoped for, the continued denial of the desired baby, must in the end lead the small lover to turn away from his hopeless longing. In this way the Oedipus complex would go to its destruction from its lack of success, from the effects of its internal impossibility.Another view is that the Oedipus complex must collapse because the time has come for its disintegration, just as the milk-teeth fall out when the permanent ones begin to grow. Although the majority of human beings go through the Oedipus complex as an individual experience, it is nevertheless a phenomenon which is determined and laid down by heredity and which is bound to pass away according to programme when the next pre-ordained phase of development sets in. This being so, it is of no great importance what the occasions are which allow this to happen, or, indeed, whether any such occasions can be discovered at all.
The justice of both these views cannot be disputed. Moreover, they are compatible. There is room for the ontogenetic view side by side with the more far-reaching phylogenetic one. It is also true that even at birth the whole individual is destined to die, and perhaps his organic disposition may already contain the indication of what he is to die from. Nevertheless, it remains of interest to follow out how this innate programme is carried out and in what way accidental noxae exploit his disposition.
We have lately been made more clearly aware than before that a child’s sexual development advances to a certain phase at which the genital organ has already taken over the leading role. But this genital is the male one only, or, more correctly, the penis; the female genital has remained undiscovered. This phallic phase, which is contemporaneous with the Oedipus complex, does not develop further to the definitive genital organization, but is submerged, and is succeeded by the latency period. Its termination, however, takes place in a typical manner and in conjunction with events that are of regular recurrence.
When the (male) child's interest turns to his genitals he betrays the fact by manipulating them frequently; and he then finds that the adults do not approve of this behaviour. More or less plainly, more or less brutally, a threat is pronounced that this part of him which he values so highly will be taken away from him. Usually it is from women that the threat emanates; very often they seek to strengthen their authority by a reference to the father or the doctor, who, so they say, will carry out the punishment. In a number of cases the women will themselves mitigate the threat in a symbolic manner by telling the child that what is to be removed is not his genital, which actually plays a passive part, but his hand, which is the active culprit. It happens particularly often that the little boy is threatened with castration, not because he plays with his penis with his hand, but because he wets his bed every night and cannot be got to be clean. Those in charge of him behave as if this nocturnal incontinence was the result and the proof of his being unduly concerned with his penis, and they are probably right. In any case, long-continued bed-wetting is to be equated with the emissions of adults. It is an expression of the same excitation of the genitals which has impelled the child to masturbate at this period.
Now it is my view that what brings about the destruction of the child’s phallic genital organization is this threat of castration. Not immediately, it is true, and not without other influences being brought to bear as well. For to begin with the boy does not believe in the threat or obey it in the least. Psycho-analysis has recently attached importance to two experiences which all children go through and which, it is suggested, prepare them for the loss of highly valued parts of the body. These experiences are the withdrawal of the mother’s breast - at first intermittently and later for good - and the daily demand on them to give up the contents of the bowel. But there is no evidence to show that, when the threat of castration takes place, those experiences have any effect. It is not until a fresh experience comes his way that the child begins to reckon with the possibility of being castrated, and then only hesitatingly and unwillingly, and not without making efforts to depreciate the significance of something he has himself observed.
The observation which finally breaks down his unbelief is the sight of the female genitals. Sooner or later the child, who is so proud of his possession of a penis, has a view of the genital region of a little girl, and cannot help being convinced of the absence of a penis in a creature who is so like himself. With this, the loss of his own penis becomes imaginable, and the threat of castration takes its deferred effect.
We should not be as short-sighted as the person in charge of the child who threatens him with castration, and we must not overlook the fact that at this time masturbation by no means represents the whole of his sexual life. As can be clearly shown, he stands in the Oedipus attitude to his parents; his masturbation is only a genital discharge of the sexual excitation belonging to the complex, and throughout his later years will owe its importance to that relationship. The Oedipus complex offered the child two possibilities of satisfaction, an active and a passive one. He could put himself in his father's place in a masculine fashion and have intercourse with his mother as his father did, in which case he would soon have felt the latter as a hindrance; or he might want to take the place of his mother and be loved by his father, in which case his mother would become superfluous. The child may have had only very vague notions as to what constitutes a satisfying erotic intercourse; but certainly the penis must play a part in it, for the sensations in his own organ were evidence of that. So far he had had no occasion to doubt that women possessed a penis. But now his acceptance of the possibility of castration, his recognition that women were castrated, made an end of both possible ways of obtaining satisfaction from the Oedipus complex. For both of them entailed the loss of his penis - the masculine one as a resulting punishment and the feminine one as a precondition. If the satisfaction of love in the field of the Oedipus complex is to cost the child his penis, a conflict is bound to arise between his narcissistic interest in that part of his body and the libidinal cathexis of his parental objects. In this conflict the first of these forces normally triumphs: the child’s ego turns away from the Oedipus complex.
I have described elsewhere how this turning away takes place. The object-cathexes are given up and replaced by identifications. The authority of the father or the parents is introjected into the ego, and there it forms the nucleus of the super-ego, which takes over the severity of the father and perpetuates his prohibition against incest, and so secures the ego from the return of the libidinal object-cathexis. The libidinal trends belonging to the Oedipus complex are in part desexualized and sublimated (a thing which probably happens with every transformation into an identification) and in part inhibited in their aim and changed into impulses of affection. The whole process has, on the one hand, preserved the genital organ - has averted the danger of its loss - and, on the other, has paralysed it - has removed its function. This process ushers in the latency period, which now interrupts the child’s sexual development.
I see no reason for denying the name of a ‘repression?to the ego’s turning away from the Oedipus complex, although later repressions come about for the most part with the participation of the super-ego, which in this case is only just being formed. But the process we have described is more than a repression. It is equivalent, if it is ideally carried out, to a destruction and an abolition of the complex. We may plausibly assume that we have here come upon the borderline - never a very sharply drawn one - between the normal and the pathological. If the ego has in fact not achieved much more than a repression of the complex, the latter persists in an unconscious state in the id and will later manifest its pathogenic effect.
Analytic observation enables us to recognize or guess these connections between the phallic organization, the Oedipus complex, the threat of castration, the formation of the super-ego and the latency period. These connections justify the statement that the destruction of the Oedipus complex is brought about by the threat of castration. But this does not dispose of the problem; there is room for a theoretical speculation which may upset the results we have come to or put them in a new light. Before we start along this new path, however, we must turn to a question which has arisen in the course of this discussion and has so far been left on one side. The process which has been described refers, as has been expressly said, to male children only. How does the corresponding development take place in little girls?
At this point our material - for some incomprehensible reason - becomes far more obscure and full of gaps. The female sex, too, develops an Oedipus complex, a super-ego and a latency period. May we also attribute a phallic organization and a castration complex to it? The answer is in the affirmative; but these things cannot be the same as they are in boys. Here the feminist demand for equal rights for the sexes does not take us far, for the morphological distinction is bound to find expression in differences of psychical development. 'Anatomy is Destiny' to vary a saying of Napoleon's. The little girl's clitoris behaves just like a penis to begin with; but, when she makes a comparison with a playfellow of the other sex, she perceives that she has 'come off badly' and she feels this as a wrong done to her and as a ground for inferiority. For a while still she consoles herself with the expectation that later on, when she grows older, she will acquire just as big an appendage as the boy's. Here the masculinity complex of women branches off. A female child, however, does not understand her lack of a penis as being a sex character; she explains it by assuming that at some earlier date she had possessed an equally large organ and had then lost it by castration. She seems not to extend this inference from herself to other, adult females, but, entirely on the lines of the phallic phase, to regard them as possessing large and complete - that is to say, male - genitals. The essential difference thus comes about that the girl accepts castration as an accomplished fact, whereas the boy fears the possibility of its occurrence.
The fear of castration being thus excluded in the little girl, a powerful motive also drops out for the setting-up of a super-ego and for the breaking-off of the infantile genital organization. In her, far more than in the boy, these changes seem to be the result of upbringing and of intimidation from outside which threatens her with a loss of love. The girl's Oedipus complex is much simpler than that of the small bearer of the penis; in my experience, it seldom goes beyond the taking of her mother's place and the adopting of a feminine attitude towards her father. Renunciation of the penis is not tolerated by the girl without some attempt at compensation. She slips - along the line of a symbolic equation, one might say - from the penis to a baby. Her Oedipus complex culminates in a desire, which is long retained, to receive a baby from her father as a gift - to bear him a child. One has an impression that the Oedipus complex is then gradually given up because this wish is never fulfilled. The two wishes - to possess a penis and a child - remain strongly cathected in the unconscious and help to prepare the female creature for her later sexual role. The comparatively lesser strength of the sadistic contribution to her sexual instinct, which we may no doubt connect with the stunted growth of her penis, makes it easier in her case for the direct sexual trends to be transformed into aim-inhibited trends of an affectionate kind. It must be admitted, however, that in general our insight into these developmental processes in girls is unsatisfactory, incomplete and vague.
I have no doubt that the chronological and causal relations described here between the Oedipus complex, sexual intimidation (the threat of castration), the formation of the super-ego and the beginning of the latency period are of a typical kind; but I do not wish to assert that this type is the only possible one. Variations in the chronological order and in the linking-up of these events are bound to have a very important bearing on the development of the individual.
Since the publication of Otto Rank's interesting study, The Trauma of Birth, even the conclusion arrived at by this modest investigation, to the effect that the boy's Oedipus complex is destroyed by the fear of castration, cannot be accepted without further discussion. Nevertheless, it seems to me premature to enter into such a discussion at the present time, and perhaps inadvisable to begin a criticism or an appreciation of Rank's view at this juncture.www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
