触及普遍真理
In 1913, only a few months before the start of WWI, Freud published Totem und Tabu: Einige .bereinstimmungen im Seelenleben der Wilden und der Neurotiker [Totem and Taboo: Some Points of Agreement between the Mental Lives of Savages and Neurotics].39 It is a work that would reflect on his psychoanalytic experience, but would apply this to a sketch of cultural history that charted the development of society and the distinction between so-called primitive men and civilization. The book was informed by Freud’s extensive study of anthropological literature. In psychoanalytical practice, he asked his patients to remember childhood events,40 so that by reaching back into their past, they would move forward. What they told was their very personal and private history. Freud, however, was interested in a larger picture. In sketching an outline for a history of civilization, Freud proposed to study the childhood of mankind. Vienna’s neurotic patients were to illuminate the course of human history, for it was by reaching back to the “savages” that Freud now wanted to offer new insights into their neurotic illnesses, while, at the same time, offering psychoanalysis as a tool to understand the course of history. The once absent father, murdered on some country road, turned into an omnipresent one. Freud cites the spirit Ariel from Shakespeare’s The Tempest: “Nothing of him that doth fade.”41
1913年，就在第一次世界大战开始前几个月，弗洛伊德出版了《图腾与禁忌：野蛮人与神经症患者精神生活之间的一些共识》。该书本应该是一部反映其精神分析经验的作品，但是他却将其用来描绘这样一种文化史——绘制了文明史以及所谓的原始人与文明之区别的发展图景。弗洛伊德对人类学文学的广泛研究为这本书提供了信息。在精神分析实践中，他要求他的患者回忆童年时期的事件，以便通过回顾他们的过去，让他们能够向前迈进。他们所讲的是他们非常个人和私人的历史。然而，弗洛伊德也感兴趣的，是在更大的景象中勾勒文明史的轮廓。弗洛伊德建议研究人类的童年。维也纳的神经正患者将要照亮人类历史的进程，因为弗洛伊德现在想通过回溯“野蛮人”身上的事情，对他们的神经病提供新的见解，然而，与此同时提供的精神分析充当了理解历史进程之工具。这位曾经缺席的父亲，在某条乡间小路上被谋杀，变成了一位无所不在的父亲。弗洛伊德引用了莎士比亚的《暴风雨》中的精神（spirit）：“他的存在不曾殒灭。”
Freud discusses incest and its early prohibition, which led to more complex social structures while focusing largely on his readings about Australian Aborigines. He tried to show that civilization, and cultural development, rested on prohibitions such as that. Most strikingly, however, is his introduction of the Oedipus story, which as the consideration of the Oedipus complex had become a center point of his psychoanalytic treatment. “At the conclusion, then, of this exceedingly condensed inquiry, I should like to insist that its outcome shows that the beginnings of religion, morals, society and art converge in the Oedipus complex.” Freud writes, “This is in complete agreement with the psychoanalytic finding that the same complex constitutes the nucleus of all neuroses, so far as our present knowledge goes. It seems to me a most surprising discovery that the problems of social psychology, too, should prove soluble on the basis of one single concrete point—man’s relation to his father” (156.157).
弗洛伊德讨论了乱伦及其早期的禁制，当人他关注于对澳大利亚土著人之解读的时候，这导致了更复杂的社会结构。他试图表明，文明和文化发展驻足休憩于这样的禁令。然而，最引人注目的是他对俄狄浦斯故事的介绍，作为对俄狄浦斯情结的思考，这已经成为他精神分析治疗的中心点。“那么，在这个极其浓缩的调查的结论中，我想坚持认为，它的结果表明，宗教、道德、社会和艺术的起源在俄狄浦斯情结中是一致的。”弗洛伊德写道，“这与精神分析的发现完全一致，即，就我们目前的知识而言，相同的复合体构成了所有神经症的核心。在我看来，一个最令人惊讶的发现是，社会心理学的问题也应该基于一个具体的点——人与父亲的关系——来解决”。（156.157）。
If the Interpretation of Dreams established the importance of the Oedipus complex for psychoanalytic theory and practice, Totem and Taboo tried to do the same for social anthropology. Freud wanted to establish a close connection between the psychoanalytic discoveries of an individual's development and possible neurotic suffering, and the development of societies. Psychoanalysis was not just a field of medical investigation or philosophical speculation, but of social analysis as well. In the process, the Oedipus complex would become the focus point in the relationship between psychoanalysis and anthropology that it remains today. Two questions seem to structure this encounter already early on. First, Freud’s insistence on the universal truth of his discovery rested on a description of a nuclear family—father, mother, son—and did not include the consideration of differently structured families: either families with different membership constellations or different father roles. Second, and this is related to the first, there is the issue of gender. Freud’s early concept of the Oedipus complex was largely sketched along the lines of the development of boys. Only in 1923, in his Das Ich und das Es [The Ego and the Id], did he consider a fuller treatment, and a description of the “complete” Oedipus complex that included the development of a girl.42
如果《梦的解析》确立了俄狄浦斯情结对于精神分析理论和实践的重要性，那么《图腾与禁忌》也确立了社会人类学的重要性。弗洛伊德希望在个人的发展和可能的神经症痛苦的精神分析发现与社会发展之间建立密切联系。精神分析不仅是医学调查或哲学思辨的领域，也是社会分析的领域。在这个过程中，俄狄浦斯情结将成为精神分析学和人类学之间关系的焦点，这种关系至今仍然存在。有两个问题似乎早已构成了这场相遇的结构。首先，弗洛伊德坚持，他发现的普遍真理是基于对核心家庭父亲、母亲、儿子的描述，而没有考虑到不同结构的家庭：要么是具有不同成员星座的家庭，要么是不同父亲角色的家庭。第二，这与第一个有关，还有性别问题。弗洛伊德早期关于俄狄浦斯情结的概念主要是沿着男孩的发展路线勾勒出来的。直到1923年，在《自我与本我》一书中，他才考虑到一种更全面的处理方式，并描述了“完整”的俄狄浦斯情结，其中包括女孩的成长。
The British William Halse Rivers Rivers and Charles Gabriel Seligman, anthropologists who were also physicians, were interested in Freud’s writings early on, hoping that they would provide support for the treatment of soldiers returning from the WWI battle fields with war traumas. Both were critical of Freud’s theses, and tried to test them with ethnographic material. The English translation of Totem and Taboo was published in 1918, just as WWI ended, and a more thorough international reception of the work ensued. As Eric Smadja points out, Bronisaw Malinowski’s engagement with Freud’s work occurred after the publication of his monograph, Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922), the result of his field work in Oceania.43 In a sequence of essays, “Psychoanalysis and anthropology” (1923), “Psychoanalysis and anthropology” (1924), and “Complex and myth in mother-right” (1925), and finally in Sex and Repression in Savage Society (1927), he argued against Freud’s model of human development as a universal one. “The complex exclusively known to the Freudian School,” Malinowski states there,and assumed by them to be universal, I mean the Oedipus complex, corresponds essentially to our patrilineal Aryan family with the developed patria potestas, buttressed by Roman law and Christian morals, and accentuated by the modern economic conditions of the well-to-do bourgeoisie. Yet this complex is assumed to exist in every savage or barbarous society. This can certainly not be correct.
同为医生的英国人类学家威廉·哈尔斯·里弗斯（William Halse Rivers）和查尔斯·加布里埃尔·塞利格曼（Charles Gabriel Seligman）很早就对弗洛伊德（Freud）的著作感兴趣，希望他们能为治疗从一战战场返回的战争创伤士兵提供支持。两人都对弗洛伊德的论文持批评态度，并试图用人种学材料对其进行检验。《图腾与禁忌》的英文译本于1918年出版，当时正值第一次世界大战结束，国际社会对这部作品的接受度更高。正如埃里克·斯马贾（Eric Smadja）指出的那样，布罗尼斯拉夫·马林诺夫斯基（Bronisaw Malinowski）在他的专著《西太平洋的阿尔戈诺亚特》（1922年）出版之后参与了弗洛伊德的工作，该书这是他在大洋洲实地工作的结果。在《精神分析与人类学》（1923年）、《精神分析和人类学》（1914年）和《母权的复杂性与神话》（1925年），以及最后在《野蛮社会的性与压抑》（1927年）等一系列文章中，他反对弗洛伊德将人的发展模式视为一种普遍的模式。“弗洛伊德学派独有的情结，”马林诺夫斯基在说，他们认为俄狄浦斯情结是普遍的，这件事从本质上与我们的父系雅利安族群相对应，他们拥有发达的父系权力者，受到罗马法律和基督教道德的支持，并且在富裕资产阶级的现代经济条件下得以加强。然而，认为这种情结存在于每一个野蛮或野蛮的社会中，肯定是不对的。
According to Malinowski, the Oedipus complex was absent in the matrilineal societies that he studied. In such societies, a boy’s desire was not directed toward his mother, but his sister. Ernest Jones tried to refute Malinowski’s findings already early on,45 and with the financial support of Freud’s former student, the psychoanalyst Marie Bonaparte, Géza Róheim departed for Australia and Melanesia to test Malinowski’s thesis. In 1932, Róheim published Psychoanalysis and Anthropology, in which he described repressed oedipal impulses among the members of a matrilineal society.46 In 1982, the anthropologist Melford Spiro refuted Malinowski’s claim by reviewing Malinowski’s data, with Oedipus in the Trobriands.47
马林诺夫斯基认为，他所研究的母系社会中没有俄狄浦斯情结。在这样的社会里，男孩的欲望不是针对他的母亲，而是针对他的妹妹。欧内斯特·琼斯（Ernest Jones）早就试图驳斥马林诺夫斯基（Malinowski）的发现，在弗洛伊德的前学生、精神分析学家玛丽·波拿巴（Marie Bonaparte）的资助下，盖萨·罗海姆（Géza Róheim）前往澳大利亚和美拉尼西亚（Melanesia）测试马林诺夫斯基的论文。1932年，罗海姆出版了《精神分析与人类学》，其中他描述了母系社会成员中被压抑的俄狄浦斯情结冲动。1982年，人类学家梅尔福德·斯皮罗（Melford Spiro）通过审查马林诺夫斯基（Malinowski）的数据，在《俄狄浦斯在特罗布里恩群岛》中驳斥了马林诺夫斯基的说法，并声称俄狄浦斯与特罗布里恩人有联系。
But questions regarding the universal validity of the Oedipus complex continued to haunt anthropological research in regard to family formation, matrilineal versus patrilineal societies, and the role of women within society. Indeed, it seems that the disciplines of anthropology and psychoanalysis found points of contact, but have diverged in regard to their goals. Psychoanalysts have sought to theorize about human nature in general, while anthropologists have been eager to insist on their subject’s specificity, and on the differences among the peoples. There were also concerns in regard to Freud’s approach. Claude Lévi-Strauss questioned Freud’s description of desire by posing the model of an unconscious of devoid of content, initiating a structural understanding of the psyche. The motif of incest, for example, was not to mean anything in itself, and gain meaning only in the relationship to the other motifs.48 “If a myth is made up of all its variants,” Lévi-Strauss writes in his study on “The Structural Study of Myth,” moreover, “structural analysis should take all of them into account.”49 Elements can be rearranged, and further versions of a myth can be added. For Lévi-Strauss, Freud’s comments on Oedipus, his formulation of the Oedipus complex, becomes part of this collection, and takes his place next to Sophocles.50
但是，关于俄狄浦斯情结普遍有效性的问题继续困扰着人类学研究，涉及了家庭形成、母系与父系社会，以及妇女在社会中的作用。事实上，人类学和精神分析学科似乎找到了联系点，但在目标方面出现了分歧。精神分析学家试图从总体上对人性进行理论化，而人类学家则急于坚持他们研究对象的特殊性以及不同民族之间的差异。也有人对弗洛伊德的方法表示担忧。克劳德·列维·施特劳斯（Claude Lévi Strauss）质疑弗洛伊德对欲望的描述，弗洛伊德提出了一个缺乏内容的无意识模型，引发了对心灵的结构性理解。例如，乱伦主题本身并不意味着什么，只有在与其他主题的关系中才有意义。“如果一个神话是由它的所有不同版本组成的，”莱维·施特劳斯在其关于《神话的结构研究》中研究中写道，此外，“结构分析应该考虑到所有的版本。”可以重新安排元素，可以添加神话的进一步版本。对于勒维·施特劳斯来说，弗洛伊德对俄狄浦斯的评论，他的俄狄普斯情结的表述，成为这本书的一部分，并取代了索福克勒斯的位置。
Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari published Anti-Oedipe: Capitalisme et Schizophrénie (Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia) in 1972, and followed up with a second volume of Capitalisme et Schizophrénie: Mille Plateaux (A Thousand Plateaus). They built on a structural understanding of desire while providing a Marxist framework.51 Family relationships as well as the repression of desires—important for Freud’s idea of civilization—should be understood within a model of capitalism, rather than severed from any economic context, they argued. Deleuze and Guattari do not make any distinction between the “savages” and a “civilized” Western culture, but between capitalist societies and possible alternatives.
吉尔·德勒兹（Gilles Louis Réné Deleuze）和皮埃尔-费利克斯·加塔利（Pierre-Félix Guattarii）于1972年出版了《反俄狄浦斯：资本主义与精神分裂症》（Anti-Oedipe:Capitalisme et Schicolprénie，Anti-Oedipus:Capitalis and Schicolparia），随后出版了第二卷《资本主义与精神崩溃：Mille Plateaux》（千高原）。他们建立在对欲望的结构性理解的基础上，同时提供了马克思主义的框架。他们认为，家庭关系以及对弗洛伊德文明思想至关重要的欲望的压制应该在资本主义模式中理解，而不是脱离任何经济背景。德勒兹和加塔利没有区分“野蛮人”和“文明”西方文化，而是区分资本主义社会和可能的替代品。
Deleuze and Guattari were able to return to the anthropological insights that were formed in Australia or Oceania to Western Europe and Freud’s Vienna, and they did it in different ways than Freud in Totem and Taboo. While Freud (or Jones, or Malinowski) wrote about “savages,” Deleuze and Guattari were hesitant to distinguish between primitive and civilized populations, and to claim Western superiority. They wanted to consider class, for example, a category that Freud, treating primarily private patients from well-to-do households, for the most part neglected.52 With the fading influence of its aristocracy, Vienna was largely a bourgeois city; by 1918, it was a Republic. But Freud, whose family had belonged to the immigrants of Vienna’s Leopoldstadt or second district, must have known about the great poverty of many of the city’s inhabitants as well; their tight housing quarters that brought together members of an extended family. Between the World Wars, social movements in the city were strong, and tried to alleviate the situation with new housing projects and social institutions.53 Perhaps ironically, Freud acquired his traditional Bildung, and read the Greek texts first, in the Leopoldstdter Gymnasium, the high school located in this center of immigration, with a student body largely drawn from Jewish families of modest means.54 In Vienna as elsewhere, abandoned wives and mothers, as well as abandoned children, were common among the poor. While many men had to struggle to make a living, women tried to get positions as domestics, saleswomen, lower-level factory workers—or turned to prostitution.55 In his critique of Freud’s rejection of the seduction theory, Masson stressed occurrences of criminal and even violent behavior in many households that were, perhaps, just better hidden in bourgeois homes.
德勒兹（Deleuze）和加塔利（Guattari）能够回到在澳大利亚或大洋洲、西欧和弗洛伊德的维也纳形成的人类学见解，他们的做法与弗洛伊德在《图腾与禁忌》（Totem and Taboo）中的做法不同。当弗洛伊德（或琼斯，或马林诺夫斯基）写关于“野蛮人”的文章时，德勒兹和加塔利在区分原始人和文明人，以及宣称西方优越感时犹豫不决。他们想要顾及阶级，例如，弗洛伊德治疗的主要私人病人来自富裕家庭，而这个阶级，在很大程度上被忽视了。随着贵族阶层影响力的减弱，维也纳基本上是一个中产阶级（布尔乔亚）城市；到1918年，它已成为一个共和国。但弗洛伊德的家人属于维也纳利奥波德斯塔特（Vienna’s Leopoldstadt）或第维也纳区的移民，他肯定也知道该市许多居民的极度贫困；他们拥挤的住房区把一个扩大的大家庭的成员聚集在一起。在两次世界大战期间，该市的社会运动十分活跃，并试图通过新的住房项目和社会机构来缓解这种状况。也许具有讽刺意味的是，弗洛伊德获得了他的传统教化，并首先在维也纳第二区高级中学（the Leopoldstdter Gymnasium）阅读了希腊文本。那是一所位于移民中心的高中，其学生群体主要来自贫困的犹太家庭。在维也纳和其他地方一样，被遗弃的妻子和母亲以及被遗弃儿童在穷人中很常见。虽然许多男性不得不挣扎着谋生，但女性试图获得家庭佣工、销售员、低级别工厂工人或转而卖淫。在对弗洛伊德拒绝诱惑理论的批评中，马森（Masson）强调了许多家庭中发生的犯罪甚至暴力行为，这些行为也许只是更好地隐藏在中产阶级（布尔乔亚）家庭中。
Freud’s Vienna was not an ethnically homogeneous society, moreover, but increasingly diverse. The city’s population had grown rapidly since 1848. With the destruction of the city walls, Vienna’s territory was extended to include many new districts. New immigration laws made it possible for people from all parts of the Empire to settle there. As a Jew, Freud belonged to such a minority of new settlers, and was very aware of social prejudices and exclusions. But wondering about his father’s reaction toward discrimination, he did not consider his father’s father figures—or even ones of his own who might be in competition with Jacob Freud. In contrast to the Ashkenazi-Jewish tradition, for example, Freud did not choose names of his ancestors for his sons, but named them after his teachers Jean-Martin Charcot, Ernst Brücke, and even after one of the historical figures he admired, Oliver Cromwell.
此外，弗洛伊德的维也纳不是一个种族单一的社会，而是一个日益多样化的社会。自1848年以来，维也纳的人口迅速增长。随着城墙的毁坏，维也纳的领土扩大到包括许多新的地区。新的移民法使帝国各地的人都有可能在那里定居。作为一个犹太人，弗洛伊德属于少数新移民，他非常清楚社会偏见和排斥。但是，他对父亲对歧视的反应感到疑惑，他没有考虑父亲的形象，甚至没有考虑自己的形象，这些形象可能与雅各布·弗洛伊德（Jacob Freud）竞争。例如，与阿什肯纳齐犹太传统相反，弗洛伊德没有为儿子们选择祖先的名字，而是以他的老师让·马丁·夏科特（Jean Martin Charcot）、恩斯特·布吕克（Ernst Brücke），甚至以他钦佩的历史人物奥利弗·克伦威尔（Oliver Cromwell）命名。
This neglect has marked the profession of psychoanalysis deeply. The question of a “white” and bourgeois standard in regard to psychoanalytic theory has moved to the forefront in recent years, both in regard to the treatment of Black, Native, and Latino families in the United States, and in the resulting theorizing.56 It has also had an effect on the choice of profession: Very few black students enter training to become psychoanalysts, a field that many regard as simply “white” or one of privilege.57 In the United States, moreover, the history of slavery continues to mark the role of Black males within society, as family members, and on their own self-perception.58
这种忽视深深地标志着精神分析职业。近年来，关于精神分析理论的“白人”和资产阶级标准的问题，无论是在美国黑人、土著人和拉美裔家庭的待遇方面，还是在由此产生的理论化方面，都已走到了最前沿。它也对职业选择产生了影响：很少有黑人学生参加培训成为精神分析师，许多人认为这只是一个“白人”或特权领域。此外，在美国，奴隶制的历史继续标志着黑人男性作为家庭成员在社会中的角色以及他们自己的自我认知。
While anthropologists have taken issue with Freud’s concept of the family, early feminist theorists began to counter Freud with their distinction between sex and gender. Sex was linked to biology and defined the body as male or female, whereas gender was defined as socially bound. Freud had at least begun to relate a girl’s development to the model of the Oedipus complex by altering the model of attraction—a girl would move to desire her father and develop a hostility toward her mother. He referred to the Oedipus complex in his analysis of the development of boys and girls. Carl Gustav Jung coined a different term for the girl’s development altogether around 1913, namely the “Electra complex.”59 Beginning in the 1970s, Freud’s description of female sexuality was criticized by French analysts such as Hélène Cixous and Luce Irigaray. In his larger description of the Oedipus complex and human development, Freud had described a boy’s castration anxiety after realizing a girl’s absent penis, and on the other hand, a girl’s penis envy. For Cixious and Irigaray, female sexuality should not be defined by a lack. They countered Freud’s concept with their own description of the female human body, and female sexual development, rejecting “penis envy,” and redefining female desire.60 “And man, are you still going to bank on everyone’s blindness and passivity, afraid lest the child make a father, and consequently, that in having a kid the woman land herself more than one bad deal by engendering all at once child—mother—father—family?” Cixous asks in “The Laugh of the Medusa”: “Let us demater-paternalize rather than deny woman in an effort to avoid the co-optation of procreation, a thrilling era of the body. Let us defetishize. Let’s get away from the dialectic which has it that the only good father is a dead one, or that the child is the death of his parents.”61 Irigaray in turn redefined desire, as her woman could please herself. Woman is no longer defined by the lack of a sex organ, but “woman has sex organs more or less everywhere. She finds pleasure almost anywhere.”62
当人类学家对弗洛伊德的家庭概念提出质疑时，早期的女性主义理论家开始用性和性别的区别来反对弗洛伊德。性与生物学有关，将身体定义为男性或女性，而性别则被定义为受社会约束。弗洛伊德至少已经开始通过改变诱惑模式，将女孩的发展与俄狄浦斯情结的模式联系起来——女孩会渴望父亲，并对母亲产生敌意。他在分析男孩和女孩的发展时提到了俄狄浦斯情结。1913年前后，卡尔·古斯塔夫·荣格（Carl Gustav Jung）为女孩的发展创造了一个完全不同的术语，即“恋父情结”（Electra complex）。从20世纪70年代开始，弗洛伊德对女性性行为的描述受到了法国分析家的批评，如海尔·西索斯（Hélene Cixous）和卢斯·伊里加莱（Luce Irgaray）。在他对俄狄浦斯情结和人类发展的更大描述中，弗洛伊德描述了一个男孩在意识到一个女孩的阴茎缺失后的阉割焦虑，另一方面，一个女孩对阴茎的嫉妒。对于Cixious和Irigaray来说，女性性行为不应该被定义为缺乏。他们用自己对女性人体和女性性发展的描述来反驳弗洛伊德的概念，拒绝“阴茎嫉羡”，重新定义女性欲望。“老兄，你还会指望每个人的盲目性和被动性吗？你害怕孩子会成为父亲，因此，在生孩子的过程中，女人会一下子产生一个孩子-母亲-父亲的家庭，从而给自己带来不止一件坏事吗？”西克索斯在《美杜莎的笑声》中问道：“让我们要求父权化而不是否定女性，以避免生育的合作，这是一个身体的激动人心的时代。让我们摒弃这种辩证法。让我们摆脱这种辩证法，即唯一的好父亲是一个死去的父亲，或者孩子是他父母的死亡。” Irgaray反过来重新定义了欲望，因为她的女人可以取悦自己。女性不再被定义为缺乏性器官，而是“女性或多或少到处都有性器官。她几乎在任何地方都能找到快乐。”
The American analyst Nancy Chodorow chose another route to cri.tique Freud. She did not focus as much on his perception of the female body, but rejected the complementary role of a female Oedipus complex. “For Freud and the early analysts, the major oedipal task was preparation for heterosexual adult relationships,” she writes: “In the traditional para.digm, a girl must change her love object from mother to father, her libidi.nal mode from active to passive, and finally her libidinal organ and eroticism from clitoris to vagina. A boy has to make no such parallel changes.”63 If Masson thought that Freud turned away from fin-de-siècle Viennese reality, Chodorow argues that he is too much in tune with it, favoring a heterosexual, nuclear family in which the man assumes a dominant role. If Malinowski questioned the validity of Freud’s concept in matrilineal societies in Oceania, Chodorow wanted to make room for more than heterosexual models in the very Western culture itself. She is, moreover, less interested in the position of the father, but in the role of fathering; and even more so, in the woman’s role in any family. For Chodorow, the central issue is a woman’s ability to bear a child, and the fact that she could assume the role of a mother:
美国分析师南希·乔多罗（Nancy Chodorow）选择了另一条批判弗洛伊德的道路。她没有那么关注他对女性身体的看法，但拒绝接受女性恋母情结的补充作用。她写道：“对于弗洛伊德和早期的分析人士来说，恋母癖的主要任务是为异性恋与成人的关系做准备。”“在传统的范例中，女孩必须把她的爱的对象从母亲变成父亲，把她的性欲模式从主动变为被动，最后把她的性爱器官和性欲从阴蒂变为阴道。男孩不必做出类似的改变。”。“如果马森认为弗洛伊德背离了维也纳的现实，那么Chodorow认为他太符合这个现实，偏爱一个异性恋的核心家庭，男人在这个核心家庭中占据主导地位。如果马林诺夫斯基质疑弗洛伊德的概念在大洋洲的母系社会中的有效性，那么Chodorow想在西方文化中为异性恋模特腾出更多的空间。此外，她对父亲的地位不太感兴趣，而是对父亲的角色感兴趣；更重要的是，女性在任何家庭中的角色。对于乔多罗来说，核心问题是女性生育能力，以及她可以扮演母亲的角色：
[I]n a new interpretation of the feminine Oedipus complex, I suggest that because women mother, the Oedipus complex is as much a mother-daughter issue as it is one of the father and daughter, and that it is as much concerned with the structure and composition of the feminine relational ego as it is with the genesis of sexual object choice.64
[一] 在对女性俄狄浦斯情结的一种新的解释中，我认为，由于女性母亲，俄狄普斯情结既是父女关系的问题，也是母女关系的一个问题，它与女性关系自我的结构和构成以及性对象选择的起源一样密切相关。
In insisting on the mother as a more active presence for the girl, Chodorow redefines the role of the father as well, and finally questions the heterosexual relationship as a universal template.
在坚持认为母亲是女孩更积极的存在时，乔多罗也重新定义了父亲的角色，最后质疑异性恋关系是一个普遍的模板。
Freud’s attention to female sexuality came belatedly, and so did his attention toward non-heterosexual desire. Would the Oedipus complex work the same with boys or girls who do not desire the opposite sex? Freud may have shown tolerance toward homosexuality, as critics who follow Jacques Lacan’s attentive readings of Freud’s work are eager to argue.65 But Freud displayed blindness as well, as most famously exposed in his case study of Ida Bauer (“Dora”) called “Bruchstück einer Hysterie-Analyse” [Fragment of a Case Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria]. Only in a couple of footnotes would he consider his patient’s attraction to another woman, an attraction that, however, would put most of his argument in the main text at rest.66
弗洛伊德对女性性欲的关注姗姗来迟，他对非异性恋欲望的关注也是如此。俄狄浦斯情结是否也适用于不渴望异性的男孩或女孩？弗洛伊德可能对同性恋表现出宽容，因为追随雅克·拉康对弗洛伊德作品细心解读的评论家们急于争辩。但弗洛伊德也表现出了失明，最著名的是他对Ida Bauer（“Dora朵拉”）的案例研究，称为“癔症分析”[癔症案例分析的案例片段]。只有在几个脚注中，他才会考虑到他的病人对另一个女人的吸引力，然而，这种吸引力会使他在正文中的大部分论点处于静止状态。
While questioning Freud’s description of female sexuality or desire, Cixous, Irigaray, or Chodorow still operated with a stable definition of women for whom they sought to gain more rights, not the least that of pleasure. By the 1990s, however, this sense of stability began to crumble. Already in 1929, Freud’s student Joan Riviere published a case study of a female patient who would alternate between a more resolute behavior, and one that could be traditionally defined as feminine, and wonder whether womanliness could be understood as a masquerade.67 Lacan referred to Riviere in a paper he presented in 1958,68 and Judith Butler has expanded on Riviere’s insight in Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990).69 If biological sex seemed fixed at first, gender could, however, be performed. In the context of performance, fatherhood becomes differently relational as well. But to what degree does the role of a father change for a person who performs as a woman at one point and as a man at another time?
在质疑弗洛伊德对女性性欲或欲望的描述时，西克索斯、伊里加莱或乔多罗仍然对女性有一个稳定的定义，即她们寻求获得更多的权利，而不仅仅是快乐。然而，到了20世纪90年代，这种稳定感开始瓦解。早在1929年，弗洛伊德的学生琼·里维埃（Joan Riviere）就发表了一篇关于一位女性患者的案例研究，她会在更坚决的行为和传统上被定义为女性的行为之间交替出现，并想知道女性是否可以被理解为一种伪装。拉康在1958年发表的一篇论文中提到了里维埃，朱迪思·巴特勒（Judith Butler）进一步阐述了里维埃尔在《性别问题：女性主义和身份颠覆》（1990）中的见解。如果生物学上的性行为起初似乎是固定的，那么性别就可以实现。在绩效方面，父亲身份也变得不同。但是，对于一个时而扮演女性角色，时而扮演男性角色的人来说，父亲的角色会在多大程度上发生变化？
“Integral to Freud’s oedipal story is the inevitability of patriarchy, a bias that has long served to justify the suppression of women, but I would also add has been detrimental to individuals who identify as male,” writes Cathy Siebold,70 placing Freud’s work firmly within the context of patriarchal thought, and moving his interpretation of Oedipus firmly into the realm of myth. But could he also be read differently, as critics Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose would like to suggest, for example with the help of Lacan’s re-readings of Freud’s work?71 Or does one have to reformulate the Oedipus complex?72 And how does one, with or without Freud, conceive of the role of the father today?
凯西·西博尔德（Cathy Siebold）写道：“父权制的不可避免性是弗洛伊德俄狄浦斯故事中不可或缺的一部分，父权制是一种偏见，长期以来，这种偏见一直在为压制女性辩护，但我还要补充一点，它也对认同男性的个人有害。” 凯西·希博尔德将弗洛伊德的作品牢牢地放在父权思想的背景下，并将他对俄狄普斯的解释牢牢地转移到神话的领域。但是，正如评论家朱丽叶·米切尔（Juliet Mitchell）和杰奎琳·罗斯（Jacqueline Rose）所建议的那样，比如在拉康（Lacan）重新解读弗洛伊德（Freud）作品的帮助下，对他的解读是否也会有所不同？或者人们必须重新定义俄狄浦斯情结吗？不管有没有弗洛伊德，一个人如何看待今天父亲的角色？
The twenty-first century has not only offered additional work on the performance of gender roles, but biological sex has been increasingly been recognized as unstable, and not just because of the rejection of simple binaries. Biological sex cannot always be assigned simply one way or the other, and intersex persons have been subject to increased scholarly attention.73 And sex assignment can change. A man who acts like a woman or wants to desire like a woman does not necessarily want to be a woman. People who are transgender, however, are not considering the questions of social gender roles, but of changes to the body. Often, persons who pursue a change of sex describe themselves as feeling misplaced in their body, of trying to correct a biological error. A psychological identity does not agree with the physical one. This feeling of mis-alignment between a body and one’s felt identity may occur in a son or in a daughter. But it can occur in a father, too. Does a child view his or her father who comes out as transgender as a father still? Television shows like Transparent move this question into the realm of popular culture, and at times even of a comedy of mistaken identities of a special kind.74
21世纪不仅为性别角色的履行提供了额外的工作，而且生物性越来越被认为是不稳定的，这不仅仅是因为拒绝简单的二元性。生物学上的性行为不能总是被简单地指定为一种或另一种，中间性者已经受到越来越多的学术关注。性别分配可以改变。一个表现得像女人或想要像女人一样欲望的男人不一定想成为女人。然而，变性人并没有考虑社会性别角色的问题，而是考虑身体的变化。通常，追求改变性别的人会把自己描述为身体错位，试图纠正生理错误。心理身份与生理身份不一致。这种身体与自我感觉身份不一致的感觉可能发生在儿子或女儿身上。但它也可能发生在父亲身上。孩子们是否仍然认为自己的父亲是变性人？像《透明》这样的电视节目将这个问题带入了大众文化的领域，有时甚至是一部特殊类型的错误身份喜剧。
There is not only the question of determining gender or sex, however, but an increased awareness of the split between a biological father and the father who assumes the role of a male parent. While this has always existed in cases of adoption, it assumes new importance when traditional family structures are no longer in place. Same-sex couples who raise a child may assume traditional gender roles, or not. When a biological or surrogate parent is openly introduced into the family, fathers, just as mothers, can double. Fathers can assume the role of nurturing care givers, a role traditionally assigned to women, while mothers pursue careers outside the home. “By allowing for the positive presence of the ‘real father’—and increasingly, of a plurality of ‘real fathers’—within the child development, contemporary psychoanalytic discussions of involved fatherhood present a significant challenge to Freudian notions of the father as an absent authority,” social psychologist Tabitha Freeman writes.75 Adding to a discussion of changed family constellations, Freeman has provided data for cases in which artificial insemination was at play, the biological father absent, and no real replacement in sight.76 Here too, social models evolved that question Freud’s assumption of a family structure that proves to be a specifically bourgeois one, informed by his place and time and personal experience.
然而，问题不仅仅是如何确定性或性别，而且人们越来越意识到生父与扮演男性家长角色的父亲之间的分裂。虽然这在收养案件中一直存在，但当传统的家庭结构不再存在时，它就具有了新的重要性。抚养孩子的同性伴侣可能承担传统的性别角色，也可能不承担。当一位亲生父母或代孕父母被公开介绍给家庭时，父亲和母亲一样可以加倍。父亲可以承担养育照料者的角色，这是一个传统上分配给女性的角色，而母亲则在家庭之外从事职业。社会心理学家塔比莎·弗里曼（Tabitha Freeman）写道：“通过允许‘真正的父亲’——以及越来越多的‘真正的爸爸’——积极地存在于儿童发展中，当代精神分析学关于父亲身份的讨论，对弗洛伊德关于父亲是缺席权威的观念提出了重大挑战。”。除了对改变家庭星座的讨论之外，弗里曼还提供了一些数据，说明人工授精正在进行，生父缺席，而且看不到真正的替代者。在这里，社会模式也演变成了对弗洛伊德的家庭结构假设的质疑，这种家庭结构被证明是一种特定的资产阶级结构，这是由他的地点、时间和个人经历决定的。
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
