繁体 心理学人 > 陈明 常熟心理咨询师 > 精神分析翻译 >

IPA精神分析词汇:AMAE 娇宠

IPA 2017-10-05
陈明 译
Tri-Regional Entry 精神分析三大洲条目
Inter-Regional Consultants国际区间顾问:
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)
来源:IPA 网站http://url.cn/5qJSp49
陈明 译



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是来源于形容词甜蜜的(amai)【译注:日语甘い】,意思是“甜蜜的味道”。动词组合邀宠(Amaeru)由甜蜜(amai)加上表“得到”或“获得”之意的后缀eru构成。因此动词邀娇(amaeru)的字面意思是获得甜蜜。在通常的用法中,邀娇(amaeru)指的是孩子般的行为,诱使(他人)纵容(自己)的依赖方式,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。娇宠是一种恳请纵容的行为,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.


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,一再发生的文化模式互动,在这种互动中,悬置了一般性的礼仪礼节规则,允许彼此给予和接受深情的自我支持”(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学术语的定义被Daniel Freeman(1998)进一步扩展为“在服务于自我之时相互影响的互动退行,以满足和服务于彼此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是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.




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:


“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).


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?




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.

Erik Erikson(1950)描述了人类心理成长和发展过程中,各种不同的特殊社会与文化如何对不同的适应模式产生影响的。他扩展了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。 也可以在在这样的情景之中评估土居健朗的娇宠概念并理解日本心理学的特殊性之意义。

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:


  1. Hierarchically organized social relationships;


  2. Group orientation over individual distinction;


  3. Separation of private and public, inner and outside relationships in thoughts, feelings and conduct;


  4. Emphasis on shame (generated by outside judgment) and guilt (expression of internal judgment);


  5. Avoidance of conflict and the value of harmony;


  6. Indulgent, responsive and permissive parental style during infancy and early childhood, followed by increasingly stringent social role assignment and behavioral control in later years.


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.”

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式社会人际关系。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分层的政治和社会经济阶层的封建制度,在文化和心理上相互交映,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比较分析中指出:粘附着核心文化价值的娇宠传承的社会规范是“文化无意识”的典型代表。

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.

从这个角度来看,理解娇宠的关键在于抚养孩子的做法,这些做法包括,始终如一的身体亲密、溺爱、反应灵敏的,敏锐善解人意的母爱,以及孩子周围其他照顾者的可用性。由于有限单独生活空间,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。一早就向孩子介绍的,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。

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.




As noted earlier, while in many ways accurate and insightful in demonstrating the particular phenomenon of amae in Japanese people and clinical interactions, Doi’s first definition of the concept of amae (1973) as a “dependency need in helplessness” and “desire to be loved” triggered a number of theoretical and clinical debates. Developmentally, amae precedes a child’s acquisition of language. For example, the Japanese say of an infant who actively expresses his/her desires for mother: “This child is already so emotionally dependent (amaeru)”. When the infant continues to experience the desire for his mother’s presence, this emotional configuration becomes positioned at the core of his/her emotional life consciously and unconsciously. This can be compared to what Freud stated about the concept of “sexuality,” exclusive to psychoanalysis. “We use the word sexualität [‘sexuality’] in the same comprehensive sense as that in which the German language uses the word lieben [‘to love’]” (Freud, 1910). In this sense, the Japanese think of the Oedipus complex where love and sex are intertwined even though there are no words that correspond to lieben or love in the Japanese language. Analogically, it can be understood that “amae” has formed the main stream of emotional life throughout our lives before the Oedipus complex, even in a world outside of Japan, where the word “amae” does not yet exist. While amae is a verbal concept like love, however, unlike love, it is characterized by the fact that it does not contain “sexuality” by itself. Additionally, there are indications that the elements of amae are contained in various psychic states underlined by ambivalence. If that is the case, it may be useful to compare amae to various known psychoanalytic concepts.


Freud stated that there were two currents of love: the affectionate current and the sensual one. “The affectionate current is the older of the two. It springs from the earliest years of childhood; it is formed on the basis of the interests of the self-preservative instinct and is directed to the members of the family and those who look after the child...” (Freud, 1912, p. 180). This corresponds to the self-preservative, instinctual underpinnings of amae. The affectionate current stemming from it was later absorbed into the concept of narcissism (Freud, 1914). Here Freud wrote that although primary narcissism cannot be confirmed by direct observation, it can be gleaned from “the affectionate love of the parents for their child …could be seen as a revival and reproduction of their own narcissism, which they have long since abandoned” (Freud, 1914, pp. 90, 91). While Freud (1930) later abolished his conception of the self-preservative instinct and reached the conclusion that affection was manifestation of Eros (sexual drive) whose original aim is repressed, Doi proposed that amae corresponded to the self-preservative instinct according to Freud’s early theory of instinct and defined amae as instinctually derived dependency need.

佛洛伊德说,有两种爱的倾向:深情之爱与肉欲之爱。“深情之爱是这两种爱的早期形式。它起源于童年的最初岁月,它建立在自我保护本能利益的基础之上,指向家庭成员和照顾孩子的人……”((Freud, 1912, p180)。从本能上理解娇宠,娇宠的概念与自我保存的概念相一致。后来,由此产生的深情之爱被吸收到自恋的概念中(佛洛伊德,1914)。在这里,佛洛伊德写道,尽管原始的自恋无法通过直接观察得到证实,但是它可以收集于“父母对他们孩子的深情之爱中…可以视其为他们早已抛弃了的,自己自恋的重新上演和复制”(Freud, 1914, pp90, 91)。后来,佛洛伊德(1930)废除了他的自我保存本能概念并得出了以下的结论,情感(affection)是本已被压抑了的爱欲(性欲)的表现,土居健朗提出,根据佛洛伊德早期本能理论,娇宠与自我保存本能一致,并将娇宠定义为源自于本能地依赖需求。

In addition, Freud (1921) saw identification as the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person, which is ambivalent from the very first. So defined, Freud’s identification may correspond to amae’s underlying identificatory and ambivalent properties.


Elaborating on the concept further within the object relational matrix, Doi (1989, p.350) reiterated that amae is object-relational from the beginning. While it may not quite correspond to Freud’s concept of primary narcissism, it “fits very well with whatever state of mind may be called narcissistic” (ibid, p.350). In this sense, amae’s narcissistic properties underlie “convoluted” amae which expresses itself by being childish, willful and demanding. “In the same vein”, Doi (1989) writes (1989), “a new concept of self-object defined by Kohut as 'those archaic objects cathected with narcissistic libido' (1971, p. 3) will be much easier to comprehend in the light of amae psychology, since 'the narcissistic libido' is none other than convoluted amae” (Doi, 1989, p. 351). In this vein, Japanese analysts see Kohut’s concept of ‘desire for the self-object’ (Kohut, 1971) as nearly equivalent to amae. Also, Balint's observation that “in the final phase of the treatment patients begin to give expression to longforgotten, infantile, instinctual wishes, and to demand their gratification from their environment” (Balint, 1935/1965, p.181) may be relevant, because “the primitive amae will manifest itself only after narcissistic defenses are worked through by analysis” (Doi, 1989; p. 350).

土居健朗在客体关系基质之中进一步详尽阐述了这一概念,他(1989,p.350)重申,娇宠一开始就是客体的关系。与此同时,它的确与弗洛伊德的原始自恋的概念不太一致,尽管他很好的合身于被称为自恋的心智状态”(同上,p.350)。在这个意义上,娇宠的自恋属性位于表达着自身幼稚、任性和苛求的‘复杂的’娇宠之下,“以相同的语调”(1989)土居健朗写道(1989),“科胡特定义了一个新的自体客体,当‘古老的客体与自恋力比多相联系’(1971,p.3)之时,将会更容易领会娇宠心理学之光,因为‘自恋力比多’不是别的,而是复杂的娇宠”(Doi,1989, p.351)。以这样的语调,日本分析家认为,科胡特的“对自体客体的欲望”(Kohut,1971)几乎相当于娇宠。同时,巴林特观察到,“在治疗的最后阶段开始表达很久之前所遗忘的,幼稚的,本能的愿望,并从他们的环境中满足需求”(Balint,1935 / 1965,p.181)可能与之相关,因为“只有在自恋防御被分析修通之时,原始的娇宠才将显现”(Doi,1989; p.350)。

Building on both Freud and Ferenczi, Balint’s (1935/1965) ideas about ‘passive object love’ and primary love are conceptually closest to “amae.” He reflected that Indo-European languages do not clearly distinguish between the two kinds of object-love, active and passive. While the aim is always primarily passive (to be loved), if there is enough love and acceptance of the child coming from the environment to mitigate frustrations, the child may progress into the active ‘giving love’ in order to receive it (configuration of ‘active object love’). In clinical terms, there is a link between primitive amae and Balint’s term ‘benign regression’ and between convoluted amae and his term ‘malignant regression’.

巴林特(1935 / 1965)建立在弗洛伊德与费伦齐基础之上的“被动客体之爱”以及原始之爱的概念想法最接近于“娇宠”的概念。巴林特表达了在印欧语言之中,主动的和被动的两种客体爱之间的不明确区分。与此同时,其根本的目标总是被动的(被爱),如果环境对孩子有足够的爱和接受来缓解挫折的话,那么,孩子可能会为了接受到爱(‘积极的客体爱’结构)而发展成积极的‘给予爱’。在临床术语中,在“原始的娇宠”和巴林特的“良性回归”之间,以及“复杂的娇宠”与巴林特的“恶性退行”之间是有关联的。

Although Fairbairn (1952) valued the fact of dependence in early development in general, he did not adopt the idea of dependency needs within his object relations system. Klein’s concepts of envy (higami/jaundice) and projective identification (1957) can be seen as a distorted amae, while sharing the same object with it. Many Japanese analysts see Bion (1961) as having ‘predicted’ Doi’s amae, within the context of group dynamics, when he postulated a feeling of security as existing in each of the emotional states associated with the three basic-assumption group fantasies: dependence, fight-flight, and pairing. Likewise, Bion’s concepts of “container” and “contained,” as well as Winnicott’s ‘holding’, Hartmann’s ‘good fit’, and Stern’s ‘inter-affectivity’ reflect underlying conceptual similarity with amae, while reflecting from different perspectives on the infant’s pre-adapted dependency on the parent, clinically relevant for the transference-countertransference intersubjective matrix within the psychoanalytic process.

虽然费尔贝恩(1952)评估了依赖的事实在早期发展中的普遍性,但是在他的客体关系系统中没有采纳依赖需求的概念。克莱因关于嫉羡(日语ひがむこと)和投射性认同(1957) 的概念可以被看作是一个歪曲变形的娇宠,同时与之共享了的客体。当拜昂假设安全的情绪感受存在于与依赖、战斗-逃跑,和相对这三种基本假设的团体幻想相关联的每一种情绪状态之中时,许多日本分析家认为拜昂(1961)在群体动力学的情景脉络中“预示”了土居的娇宠。同样,拜昂的“涵容者”和“被涵容者”的概念,以及温尼科特的“抱持”,哈特曼的“良好的配适(good fit)”概念,以及Stern的“内部的情感作用(inter-affectivity)”。这些概念都反映了与娇宠类似的基本概念,虽然这些概念从不同角度反映了婴儿对父母的预适应依赖(pre-adapted),但是在临床上相关于精神分析过程中的移情-反移情主体间性基质(matrix)。



From a developmental dynamic perspective, it is important to highlight that Doi (1971) sees the origin of amae to lie in the infant’s relationship to its mother, not as a newborn but when it realizes its independent existence and sees the mother as the indispensable source for gratification. This suggests that amae arises in a developmental stage when the differentiation of ego, such as cognition, judgment and identification are already in place and object constancy exists. It implies that Mahler’s (1975) separationindividuation phase of development is in progress, after the symbiotic phase and practicing sub-phase have been successfully negotiated. The mother exists as a separate being and her benevolent indulgent delight in the child has been internalized.


If this is the case, the psychic structure of superego, too, is in the process of emerging. Prevailing Japanese child-rearing practices seem to support this view. Abundant maternal attention with non-verbal empathic responsiveness and physical as well as emotional closeness all are available for satisfactory passage through the symbiotic phase and separation-individuation phase of the child’s development. Advances in infant research (Stern, 1985) as well as Self Psychology, in recent years, endorse this parental approach to promote growth leading to the secure sense of self.


In Gertrude and Rubin Blanck’s (1994) schematic summary of development we might see amae as arising in the process of neutralization of the aggressive drive while it serves separation-individuation in active progress. Beginning with toilet training and the capacity to control bodily functions and phallically assertive individual expressions, a moderation of aggressive drive by superego development will ensue. Contrary to this typical Western scenario, Reischauer (1977) observes that toilet training and behavioral discipline of Japanese children are carried out with continued constant gentle attention and care by examples, encouragement and reminders. These methods promote the child’s identification with caregivers in moderating aggressive drive and renouncing individual needs in favor of adapting to external expectations, thus arriving by a different path to superego formation. Nonetheless, increasingly complex and frequently restrictive external rules, roles, demands for harmony, obedience, etc., are difficult cultural values to be accommodated to, causing considerable stress on the still fragile individual psyche. Shame by outside judgment and the threat of withdrawal of a loving connection might be utilized to prompt compliance to superego demands in renouncing the child’s individual needs.

在Gertrude和Rubin Blanck(1994)的发展概述中,我们可能会看到娇宠出现在攻击驱力的中立化过程中,与此同时其在积极进取的过程服务于分离个体化。随着如厕训练开始以及控制身体功能以及敏锐的个人表达能力,通过超我的发展,攻击驱力的自我节制将随之而来。与这种典型的西方场景相反,Reischauer(1977)注意到日本儿童的如厕训练和行为纪律是通过持续不断的温和关注和照顾来实施的。这些方法促进了孩子与护理者的身份认同,调节了攻击性驱力,放弃了个人需求,有利于适应外部期望,从而通过不同的途径到达超我的形成。然而,日益复杂和频繁限制的外部规则、角色、和谐顺从的需求,等等是难以适应的文化价值观,对相当脆弱的个人精神造成了相当大的压力。羞耻于外界的评判以及爱之链接撤回的威胁,可能被用来促进儿童放弃个人需求以符合超我的要求。

In these conflicted negotiations of superego and id demands, regression might take place to the rapprochement stage of development where the child seeks temporary reassurance of symbiotic maternal comfort before again moving forward on an individual, separate path. Both Akhtar (2009) and Freeman (1998) describe the emotional refueling aspect of the function of amae. Freeman’s observation of amae as temporary, intermittent yearning and his emphasis on the reciprocal mutual benefit of the amae interaction support this hypothesis. Extending his observation of the mutuality of the amae interaction, it should also be understood that amae can be initiated by the “dependent” party primarily for the benefit of the other party. For example, the amae recipient might consciously or unconsciously sense an anxious mother’s need to be reassured by the child because the child’s need for separation may be perceived by her as a rejection; amae can also meet the need of an insecure boss to feel power over an ingratiating subordinate, or an aging parent’s need to experience his/her value to a capable grown child. For that matter, sometimes ‘amicable’ amae behavior might camouflage a challenging aggressive demand couched in an appropriately dependent manner, which would correspond to Doi’s (1989) reference to ‘negative/convoluted amae.’

在这些超我与本我要求的相互冲突的谈判中,退行可能发生在发展的和解阶段,在再次向独立的、单独的路径前推进的这个阶段,儿童寻求临时共生的母性般舒适感的宽慰。 Akhtar(2009)和Freeman(1998)描述了娇宠在情绪加油方面的功能。Freeman将娇宠视为临时的,间歇性的思切,同时,他强调了娇宠相互影响的互惠互利,支持了这一假设。扩展他对娇宠交互关系的观察,也可以这样理解,娇宠的启动,主要为了对方的利益。例如,娇宠的接受者可能有意无意地感觉到母亲要孩子放心的焦虑,因为她可能认为孩子的分离需要是一种摈弃;娇宠也可以通过下属的讨好来让一个不安全的老板的体会到需求的满足,或者年迈的父母需要体验他/她对一个有能力成长的孩子的价值。对于这个问题,有时候,“友好的”娇宠行为可能以适当的依赖方式,伪装成了一个具有挑战性的侵略性需求的表达。这与土居(1989)提到的“负性的/复杂的娇宠”相对应。

While Doi’s original definition of amae (1971, 1973) as “helpless desire to be loved” stresses the aspect of passivity, this passive dimension appears to have its own complexity. Just as Doi (1971, 1973,1989), Balint (1935/1965; 1979) sees amae as a primary biologically underpinned striving/primary need and wish for love, and Bethel and Young-Bruehl (1998) consider Doi’s amae as the expectation to be indulgently loved, which they call cherishment, based instinctually and arising at birth. They, just as Doi before them, propose a reconsideration of the self-preservation ego-instinctual hypothesis, with respect to amae. In view of more recent infant research that indicates greater infant capacity for active engagement, the ‘passive-active’ spectrum, pertaining to amae, may need further study. In the context of amae, this activity observed behaviorally, for instance in the attachment studies of Bowlby (1971), reflects an internal experience, with attachment as its behavioral manifestation (Doi, 1989). We could hypothesize, that psychoanalytically amae presents a layered concept, which depicts an active instinctual/affective striving to receive love passively, to be indulged.

虽然土居最初将娇宠(1971,1973)定义为“无奈的渴望被爱”时强调了被动的方面,但是这种被动的维度似乎有自己的复杂性。正如土居(1971,1993,1989),Balint(1935/1965; 1979)所认为的一样,他们认为娇宠视以生物学基础的努力为主,同时以爱的需要和愿望为主。Bethel和Young-Bruehl(1998)认为土居的娇宠是对溺爱的期望,他们称之为珍惜,基于本能,产生于出生。他们就像在土居之前的做法一样,带着对娇宠的尊敬,提出重新考虑自我保存自我本能的假设。最近的研究表明婴儿有更多的主动参与能力,可能需要进一步研究与娇宠有关的“被动-积极”的光谱。在娇宠的情景之中,观察到的这种活动行为,例如Bowlby(1971)的依恋研究,反映了一种内部的体验,间带着其依恋的行为表现(Doi,1989)。我们可以假设,精神分析学中的娇宠呈现了一种分层的概念,它描绘了一种积极的本能/情感,努力地接受被动的爱,努力于被娇惯。

An alternative to Doi’s defining amae as “desire-drive” (1971) would be to reformulate the definition of amae as a specific form of defense, particularly prevalent in Japanese psychology, though it certainly exists elsewhere, East or West. We might then see amae as the ego’s defensive operation, an “appeal for indulgence-allowance,” mediating demands of the superego and demands of the id, or individual desires wherever they might be located in the life cycle of development. This form of ego defense is perhaps needed for adaptation to a strict society, which demands inflexible superego conformity. The hierarchical relational order and group orientation, with strict observance of rules, of roles, and conduct, where private thoughts and emotions are to be kept secret, and where conflicts are resolved by shame, all seem to be a way to deal with a superego formation that originated in feudal society. In order to function with these rigid or exacting superego demands, amae relies on non-verbal emotional communication and responses with empathy, and for “sweet” understanding for “allowance” - “indulgence” - as a necessary defense against his/her aggressive drive or the anxiety over the potential loss of the object. The Ego’s mediation of amae makes room for a person’s private emotional life and allows some avenues for expression of individual human drives, be they libidinal or aggressive. Amae is rooted in identification with pre-verbal experiences of an indulgent caretaker with the capacity to sense the child’s emotional needs and desires to which she responds with empathy, analogical perhaps to Winnicott’s (1965) concept of ‘primary maternal preoccupation’, characterizing ‘the ordinary devoted mother’. In this context, Winnicott’s differentiation between the environment-mother providing ego-relatedness (holding, tenderness, empathy) and the object-mother towards whom id-impulses/drives are directed, may represent later rendition, from the object relations point of view, of Freud’s early division between affectionate and sensual currents of love.

土居(1971)以“渴望-驱力”这个替代的定义,将娇宠定义为一种特殊的防御形式,的替代方法是将阿美的定义重新定义为特定的防御形式,这种防御方式尤其普遍存在于在日本人心理,尽管它在别的地方也存在,无论东方还是西方。那么,我们可以将娇宠视为自我的防御操作,即“娇惯-资助的恳请”,调节了超我需求与自我需求,或者是调节了位于生命发展周期的个人的欲望。这种形式的自我防御也许是对严格社会需要的适应,自我的需求僵持于超我的一致性。这种层级的关系秩序和群体导向,带着严格遵守的规则,角色和安排。在这样的情况下,私密的想法和情绪被严守着,冲突被羞耻化解,似乎一起看起来都是为了处理超我的设立,而这个超我来自于封建的社会。为了让这些刚性的或严格的超级要求发挥作用,娇宠依赖于非言语情绪交流和共情的回应,并且将“甜蜜”理解为“资助” - “娇惯”的“甜蜜”,以此作为他/她对攻击性驱力的防御、或者对可能失去客体之焦虑的防御。娇宠的自我调解机制为个人私密的情绪生活创造了空间,并允许通过一些途径来表达人性的驱力,无论是利比多性欲还是攻击性。娇宠根植于前语言体验的认同,这种体验来自于一个放纵照顾者有能力以她的共情感知并回应孩子的情感需求和欲望。的,也许类似于温尼科特(1965)的“原始母性关注(primary maternal preoccupation)”概念的描述,以“普通奉献的母亲(the ordinary devoted mother)”为特征。在这种背景之下,Winnicott区分了提供者自我-相关性(抱持,温柔,共情)的环境-母亲与自我-冲动驱力所指向的客体-母亲之间的差异,这些差异可能代表了后来的再现,从客体关系的角度来看,是弗洛伊德早期对情感与肉欲之爱之间的区分。

Amae and amaeru behavioral communications can be marshaled in a variety of defensive operations such as repression, regression and partial regression, undoing, reaction formation, a ‘mutual secret,’ or even as a pathway to sublimation.


Within this defense-adaptation formulation, too, the notion of ‘mutuality’ is developmentally, relationally, and transferentially implied in amae: Hartman’s (1958) concept of an infant and mother fitting together, Winnicott’s (1965) idea of the ‘holding environment’, as well as Bion’s (1962) concept of ‘container/contained,’ Kohut’s ‘selfobject’ (1971) and Stern’s (1985) ‘inter-affectivity’ might be applicable. Amae behaviors can be operative throughout the life cycle whenever the individual’s desires and needs are in collision with cultural-superego restrictions.




It follows from the above that amae behaviors and attitudes cannot be seen just as an expression of simple dependency needs. It is advantageous to see it within complex contextual permutations of both drive/desire as well as defense configuration. This complex view is especially applicable to transference interactions. The appearance of amae in the clinical dyad may indicate the positive transference of increased trust and honesty with the clinician, which could serve the working alliance. Doi (1989) assumes, in fact, that no matter what conscious motive induces the patient to seek psychoanalytic treatment, the underlying unconscious motive is that of amae and that ultimately, in time, this becomes the kernel of the transference. Yet clinicians need to be aware of the hierarchical nature of transference inherent especially in the Japanese clinical situation (or, for that matter, in any psychoanalytic setting), and be sensitive and in tune with non-verbal or indirect communication of both ‘positive’ as well as ‘negative’ amae, if these are conceptualized as primary needs, instinctual strivings, defense processes, or a complex developmental-dynamic configuration of all the above. Similarly, Japanese patients’ group orientation cannot simply be understood as a lack of boundaries or individuation, as it might appear simplistically in Western culture.

从上述论述可以发现,不能将娇宠的行为和态度看作是简单依赖需求的表达。在驱动/欲望以及防御组合之复杂文本脉络中理解娇宠是有好处的。这种复杂的观点特别适用于移情的相互作用。娇宠在临床二元关系中的表象可能表明了与临床医师增加的信任与真诚之积极移情的指征,这可以服务于工作联盟。 土居(1989)假设,实际上,无论什么意识动机诱使了患者寻求精神分析治疗,娇宠潜在的无意识动机,最终迟早会成为移情的核心。然而,临床医生需要意识到移情的层次性,尤其是在日本人临床情况中(或者在任何精神分析环设置中)。并且要敏感并谐调于“正向的”和“负面的”娇宠的非语言或间接的沟通。如果这些被概念化为所有以上的主要需求,本能的努力,防御过程或复杂的发展动力学构造。同样,日本患者的团体导向不能简单地被理解为缺乏边界或缺乏个性化,因为在西方文化中可能显得会简单。

Though we owe the discovery of the concept of amae to the specific Japanese context, it can be discerned in varying degrees across cultures. Within a group psychological context, it relates in complex ways to a separate individual’s need to live in, and belong to a given group setting. Developmentally and clinically, while the echoes of early maternal refueling, containing, and holding can be discerned in it, the internal interactive dynamic of amae extends over the entire life span of the individual (Doi, 1989; Freeman, 1998).

我们要对特定日本背景中的娇宠的概念的发现心存感激,它可以在不同的文化上被看出来。在一个群体的心理情景之中,它以复杂的方式将单独个体的生活需要相关联,并且归属于给定的群体设置。在发展和临床上,虽然可以从其中辨别出早期母亲般的加油,涵容与抱持的共鸣,但是娇宠的内部互动动力伸到个人的整个生命周期之中(Doi,1989; Freeman,1998)。

Doi’s seminal contribution on amae needs to be appreciated as a regionally specific developmental and clinical Japanese concept with a global reach, enriching theoretical fluency and clinical sensibility across the borders of geography, psychoanalytic culture, and individual conditions.



标签: amae amae AMAE 娇宠 娇宠 土居健郎 土居健郎

  • 日语「甘え」文化的汉译策略
  • 「甘え」文化实质探究