The father, today
当今的父亲
In her work on the treatment of children, the Freud student and British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein tried to change Freud’s time frame for the Oedipal complex, but she reflected on the role of the mother as well. Klein asked simply for a “good enough mother.”77 Chodorow’s response to Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex is an increased stress on the female role of mothering. But while child bearing is and has remained a biological woman’s role, the task of raising children has very much changed since Freud’s time, and has increasingly become a father’s purview as well. It may be time to ask what a good enough father should be like.
弗洛伊德的学生、英国精神分析学家梅兰妮·克莱恩（Melanie Klein）在她的儿童治疗工作中试图改变弗洛伊德关于恋母情结的时间框架，但她也反思了母亲的角色。克莱恩只要求一个“足够好的母亲”。乔多罗（Chodorow）对弗洛伊德的俄狄浦斯情结概念的回应是，越来越强调女性作为母亲的角色。但是，尽管生育是并一直是生物学上女性的角色，但抚养孩子的任务自弗洛伊德时代以来发生了很大的变化，并且也越来越成为父亲的职责范围。也许是时候问问一个足够好的父亲应该是什么样子了。
Unlike in Freud’s time, marriage is no longer necessarily a desired con.dition if not a requirement for the formation of families, and at the same time, the concept of marriage has changed as well. Privileged women today may choose to have children out of wedlock and without male life partners, and suffer little discrimination. Professional women may choose belated parenthood, and rely on reproductive medical interventions. Other women may raise their children alone, but not out of choice. Children may know their biological father or not, or rely on a non-biological father. “Increased divorced rates and the inexorable rise in single-parent families have contributed to a social climate in which fathers, as consistent and stable role models, are increasingly unavailable to the next generation,” Anton Oberholzer writes, “Even unstable fathering role models are in short supply.”78 But father roles were always unstable, as Sophocles’ drama shows. Fathers, in turn, may opt for parental leaves to spend more time with child rearing, or even choose to raise children on their own. Open adoptions offer their own parental constellations. Children are raised in households with two fathers or two mothers.
与弗洛伊德那个时代不同，如果不是家庭形成的要求，婚姻就不再是一种理想的结合，同时，婚姻的概念也发生了变化。如今，享有特权的女性可能会选择非婚生子女，也可能没有男性生活伴侣，而且几乎不会受到歧视。职业女性可能选择晚育和依赖生殖医学干预。其他女性可能独自抚养孩子，但并非出于选择。孩子们可能知道、或不知道自己的生父，或者依赖于非生父。安东·奥贝霍尔泽尔（Anton Oberholzer）写道：“离婚率的增加和单亲家庭无情的增长，促成了一种社会氛围，在这种氛围中，父亲作为始终如一、稳定的榜样，对下一代来说越来越难以获得。”但正如索福克勒斯的戏剧所示，“即使是不稳定的父亲榜样也很短缺。”。反过来，父亲可能会选择休育儿假，花更多时间抚养孩子，甚至选择自己抚养孩子。公开收养提供了他们自己的父母星座。孩子在有两个父亲或两个母亲的家庭中长大。
The traditional father, it seems, has not only been killed by Oedipus, but he is dead in some psychoanalytic theory as well.79 In an article published in the New York Times, journalist Sarah Boxer states that “Oedipus Is Losing His Complex”:
传统的父亲似乎不仅被俄狄浦斯杀害，而且在一些精神分析理论中也已经死亡。在《纽约时报》发表的一篇文章中，记者莎拉·博克瑟（Sarah Boxer）表示，“俄狄普斯正在失去他的情结”：
[I]s it really possible in the late 20th century to read Sophocles’ “Oedipus Tyrannus” so that the central point of the drama is not Oedipus’ terrible discovery that in killing his father and sleeping with his mother he surrendered to his unconscious wishes? Sure, if you listen to the latest generation of theorists, who suggest that Oedipus’ shame about his crimes masked the real point of the story: the violence of fathers, the inevitable perversity of nature, the authoritarianism of the state and the patriarchal roots of society.
[1] 真的有可能在20世纪末读到索福克勒斯的《俄狄浦斯·提拉诺斯（Tyrannus 不合法的统治者）》，所以这部剧的中心点不是俄狄普斯可怕的发现，即在杀死父亲和与母亲睡觉时，他屈服于自己的潜意识愿望？当然，如果你听最新一代的理论家的话，他们认为俄狄浦斯对自己罪行的羞耻掩盖了故事的真正意义：父亲的暴力、自然的必然反常、国家的威权主义和社会的父权根源。
The present volume tries to put attention on the father once again, and test Freud’s model in the context of more recent psychoanalytic work, new sociological data, and theoretical reflection. Psychoanalysis, Fatherhood, and the Modern Family brings together scholars from different fields, as well as medical practitioners, approaching questions of texts and their sources, but also with psychoanalytic patients in mind. The book’s goal is not to provide a unified answer, but case studies in theory and practice in hope of inspiring a new consideration of the subject.
本卷试图再次关注父亲，并在最近的精神分析工作、新的社会学数据和理论反思的背景下检验弗洛伊德的模型。精神分析、父亲身份和现代家庭将来自不同领域的学者以及医生聚集在一起，探讨文本及其来源的问题，同时也考虑到精神分析患者。这本书的目的不是提供一个统一的答案，而是在理论和实践中进行案例研究，以期激发对这一主题的新思考。
The chapters in Part I explore the work of Freud himself, and the early development of his concept of the Oedipus complex. Richard H. Armstrong is a trained classicist who has already considered Freud’s classic sources in his book, A Compulsion for Antiquity: Freud and the Ancient World. This time, he will not write about Freud’s reading of Greek drama or his collection of antiquities, but of his relationship to Jean-Martin Charcot. Freud had spent a semester in Paris October 1885 to February 1886, and he was impressed with Charcot’s work with hysteric patients at the Salpêtrière hospital; he translated Charcot’s writings into German as well. In Chap. 2, Armstrong takes us back to Freud’s training in Paris with Jean-Martin Charcot, to map out the influence of “retrospective medicine” on Freud. While Freud’s later work in Vienna and his conception of psychoanalytic theory has often been viewed as a break with Charcot’s practices that relied on hypnotizing the female patients, and on visually documenting their hysteric fits, Armstrong gives evidence of a more enduring influence of Charcot’s work on Freud. Chapter 3 by Harold Blum, a psychoanalyst and scholar of Freud’s work and the former Director of the Freud Archives, takes us back to Freud’s early correspondence. Blum focuses on two of Freud’s letters, and in his close reading, he is able to sketch the development of Freud’s ideas of the Oedipus complex in more detail.
第一部分的章节探讨了弗洛伊德本人的作品，以及他对俄狄浦斯情结概念的早期发展。理查德·阿姆斯特朗（Richard H.Armstrong）是一位训练有素的古典主义者，他在《对古代的强迫：弗洛伊德与古代世界》（a Compulsion for Antiquity：Freud and the Ancient World）一书中已经考虑过弗洛伊德的古典来源。这一次，他不会写弗洛伊德对希腊戏剧的解读或他的古董收藏，而是写他与让·马丁·夏科特的关系。1885年10月至1886年2月，弗洛伊德在巴黎度过了一个学期，他对夏科特在萨尔佩特里埃医院治疗癔症患者的工作印象深刻；他还将夏科特的作品翻译成德语。在第二章中，阿姆斯特朗带我们回到了弗洛伊德在巴黎与吉恩·马丁·夏科特（Jean-Martin Charcot）一起接受的培训，以阐明“回顾医学”对弗洛伊德的影响。虽然弗洛伊德后来在维也纳的工作和他对精神分析理论的构想经常被视为与夏科特依赖催眠女性患者和视觉记录她们歇斯底里发作的做法的决裂，但阿姆斯特朗提供了证据，证明夏科特的工作对弗洛伊德有着更持久的影响。哈罗德·布卢姆（Harold Blum）是弗洛伊德作品的精神分析师和学者，也是弗洛伊德档案馆的前馆长，他在第三章将我们带回弗洛伊德早期的通信。布鲁姆专注于弗洛伊德的两封信，在他的细读中，他能够更详细地勾勒出弗洛伊德关于俄狄浦斯情结思想的发展过程。
The book’s Part II focuses on Freud’s students, and on their reception of the Oedipus complex. It begins with a reconsideration of Jacques Lacan’s work. Was Jacques Lacan really a Freudian? That is the question that guides Mikkel Borch-Jacobson and Douglas Brick’s study of Lacan. They write:
这本书的第二部分着重于弗洛伊德的学生，以及他们对俄狄浦斯情结的接受。它从重新考虑雅克·拉康的工作开始。雅克·拉康真的是弗洛伊德主义者吗？这是指导米克尔·博奇·雅各布森和道格拉斯·布里克研究拉康的问题。他们写道：
Essentially, Lacan’s debate with Freud pivots on the Oedipus question, and this question, more than any other, supplies the key to the apparently heterodox reconstructions brought by the disciple to his predecessor’s doctrine. Indeed, Lacan’s reformulation of the Oedipus complex corresponds with a desire to solve a problem that, as can be shown, Freud was already obsessed with but that Lacan was undoubtedly the first to have deliberately confronted (note that I avoid saying solved). That problem is identification, as both the beginning and end of the Oedipus complex.81
从本质上讲，拉康与弗洛伊德的辩论以俄狄浦斯问题为中心，而这个问题比任何其他问题都更为关键，它为门徒对其前任教义的明显非正统重构提供了钥匙。事实上，拉康对俄狄浦斯情结的重新表述与解决一个问题的愿望相一致，正如可以证明的那样，弗洛伊德已经着迷于这个问题，但拉康无疑是第一个故意面对这个问题的人（请注意，我避免说解决了）。这个问题是认同，既是俄狄浦斯情结的开始，也是结束。
In Chap. 4, Jean-Michel Rabaté takes up the challenge of considering the Freudian legacy in Lacan’s thought in regard to the Oedipus complex. While Lacan had claimed to be a faithful reader of Freud, Rabaté’s summary can point at the agreement as well as critical difference between these two analysts’ concepts.
在第四章中，让-米歇尔·拉巴特（ Jean-Michel Rabaté ）接受了在拉康关于俄狄浦斯情结的思想中考虑弗洛伊德遗产的挑战。虽然拉康声称自己是弗洛伊德的忠实读者，但拉巴特的总结可以指出这两位分析家的概念之间的一致性和关键性差异。
Dorothea Olkowski in Chap. 5 turns to Félix Guattari and Gilles Deleuze. As mentioned before, their Anti-Oedipe had tried to rewrite psychoanalytic theory within a context of Marxist materialism. They question Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex, but Olkowski is able to sketch the traces of classical Freudian theory in their work. The last chapter in this part deals with the work of two other students of Freud, Jung and Léopold Szondi. At one point, Freud had designated Jung as his successor, to lead the International Psychoanalytic Association. But differences between Freud and Jung led to Jung’s final departure from the IPA in 1913, just the year of the publication of Totem and Taboo; Jung founded his own association in Zurich in Spring 1914. Léopold Szondi, a Hungarian psychoanalyst who would practice in Switzerland after WWII, conceived of his own brand of psychoanalysis, fate analysis, which was influenced by both the classical Freudian theory and Jung’s insistence on the importance of myths and archetypes. Chapter 6 by Adrian Daub deals with the recep.tion of Freud’s thought by Jung, Szondi, and Anna Freud, and he is pri.marily interested in exploring the idea of generation within the familial as well as the institutional context.
多萝西娅·奥尔科夫斯基（Dorothea Olkowski）在第五章转向费利克斯·瓜塔里和吉勒斯·德勒兹。如前所述，他们的《反俄狄浦斯》试图在马克思主义唯物主义的背景下重写精神分析理论。他们质疑弗洛伊德关于俄狄浦斯情结的概念，但奥尔科夫斯基能够在他们的作品中勾勒出经典弗洛伊德理论的痕迹。这一部分的最后一章涉及弗洛伊德的另外两位学生，荣格和莱奥波德·斯佐迪的作品。弗洛伊德曾一度指定荣格为他的继任者，领导国际精神分析协会。但弗洛伊德和荣格之间的差异导致荣格于1913年，也就是《图腾与禁忌》出版的那一年，最终离开了IPA；1914年春，荣格在苏黎世成立了自己的协会。二战后，将在瑞士执业的匈牙利精神分析师莱奥波德·松迪（Léopold Szondi）构思了自己的精神分析品牌——命运分析，这一品牌受到了古典弗洛伊德理论和荣格坚持神话和原型重要性的影响。阿德里安·道布（Adrian Daub）的第六章论述了这一现象。荣格、桑迪和安娜·弗洛伊德对弗洛伊德思想的理解，他是第一位。玛丽对探索家庭和制度背景下的代际观念很感兴趣。
Part III of chapters focuses on contemporary case studies that deal with “fatherhood” in the light of social as well as analytic theory, as well as those that concern the history of the psychoanalytic institutions. The psychologist C. Jama Adams studies Caribbean immigrant and African-American families, and he is particularly concerned with the role of the father in these families. Chapter 7 cites examples from his work with minority students and patients in New York City. Adams is observing a doubling of sorts of fatherhood, and suggests to theorize about concurrent Black and white father figures in Black families. Patricia Gherovici is a Lacanian psychoanalyst who has worked extensively with Latino families in Philadelphia. She, too, has been concerned with minority families and underprivileged patients.82 She has been increasingly concerned with transgender patients in these communities, and her experiences entered her theoretical studies.83 In Chap. 8, Gherovici offers case studies of transgender patients, and she asks: “Does a father need to be a man?” She theorizes about the relevance of the Oedipus complex, and the position of the father, in the context of transgender patients and families.
第三部分的章节侧重于当代案例研究，这些案例研究根据社会和分析理论处理“父亲身份”，以及那些涉及精神分析机构历史的案例。心理学家C.Jama Adams研究了加勒比移民和非裔美国人家庭，他特别关注父亲在这些家庭中的角色。第7章引用了他在纽约市与少数民族学生和患者合作的例子。亚当斯观察到父亲身份加倍，并建议对黑人家庭中同时出现的黑人和白人父亲形象进行理论分析。Patricia Gherovic是一位拉康精神分析师，曾与费城的拉美裔家庭进行过广泛的合作。她也一直关注少数民族家庭和贫困患者。82她越来越关注这些社区中的变性患者，她的经历进入了她的理论研究。83在第八章中，盖罗维奇提供了变性患者的案例研究，她问道：“父亲需要是男人吗？”她将俄狄浦斯情结的相关性以及父亲在变性患者和家庭中的地位理论化。
Fatherhood is not simply an issue within families, and the home, but also for public institutions. Freud himself was aware of his role as a father figure within the psychoanalytic association. With his establishment of a “Secret Society” of loyal students, Freud had even openly formed a family structure which was to compete against others, but also nurtured rivalry within.84 Membership in local or international psychoanalytical associations has traditionally reflected a society largely dominated by white males, and questions of scholarly influence or administrative succession have often been dealt with within a context not dissimilar to Oedipal strife. Howard B. Levine has remarked upon this in regard to the role of psychoanalysts and the implication of such strife for the psychoanalytic profession.85 The last two chapters in this part focus on the “fatherhood” in the context of the professional institution. John Frank’s question does not only refer to his experience in treating gay patients, but also to the status of homosexual patients within the psychoanalytic institute(s); he sketches a history of the institutional blindness (at best) vis-à-vis homosexuality in Chap. 9. In Chap. 10, I offer an institutional example of another kind that leads the reader back to post-war Germany and the re-establishment of the psychoanalytic associations there after WWII. The popular German psychoanalyst Alexander Mitscherlich defined the post-war German nation as one that had lost its father, Adolf Hitler, whose death it is unable to mourn. His bestselling book coined popular phrases like “a society without a father” and “the inability to mourn.” In turning post-war Germans into psychoanalytic patients, Mitscherlich was able to put any distinction between victims and perpetrators aside.
父亲身份不仅是家庭和家庭的问题，也是公共机构的问题。弗洛伊德自己也意识到自己在精神分析协会中作为父亲的角色。弗洛伊德建立了一个由忠诚的学生组成的“秘密社团”，他甚至公开建立了一种家庭结构，这种结构是为了与其他人竞争，但也培养了内部的竞争。地方或国际精神分析协会的成员资格传统上反映了一个主要由白人男性主导的社会，学术影响力或行政继承问题通常在与俄狄浦斯冲突相似的背景下处理。霍华德·B·莱文（Howard B.Levine）就精神分析学家的角色以及这种冲突对精神分析专业的影响发表了评论。这部分的最后两章侧重于专业机构背景下的“父亲身份”。约翰·弗兰克的问题不仅涉及他治疗同性恋患者的经验，还涉及同性恋患者在精神分析研究所的地位；他在第九章中勾勒出了对同性恋的制度性盲目（充其量）的历史。在第十章中，我提供了另一种制度性的例子，引导读者回到战后的德国，以及二战后精神分析协会在那里的重建。受欢迎的德国精神分析学家亚历山大·米切尔里奇（Alexander Mitscherlich）将战后德国定义为失去父亲阿道夫·希特勒（Adolf Hitler）的国家，希特勒之死无法哀悼。他的畅销书创造了诸如“一个没有父亲的社会”和“无力哀悼”等流行短语。在将战后德国人转变为精神分析患者的过程中，米切尔里奇能够将受害者和犯罪者之间的任何区别放在一边。
The final two chapters in this volume deal with the discussion of the role of fathers in film and literature. Laurence A. Rickels in Chap. 11 reorients the discussion of the Oedipal constellation in the light of current media theory, citing examples from popular literature as well as film, and he brings his examples in conversation with texts by Freud as well as Walter Benjamin’s study of allegory and the Baroque mourning play. Avital Ronell in Chap. 12 selects Franz Kafka as the subject of her study, and focuses on his well-known letter to his father. The letter exemplifies a son’s reckoning with a parent who seems both distant and omnipresent. If Freud may have regarded his father as too weak, Kafka thought of his as too strong. Did Kafka plan to mail his letter? Or was it simply a work of fiction? This is a question that has preoccupied literary critics for many years.86 Ronell gives evidence that a single letter can contribute much to our understanding of the human psyche. But in writing about Kafka, she has also chosen an author of Freud’s own time, who has been an interested reader of Freud’s text.
本卷的最后两章讨论了父亲在电影和文学中的角色。劳伦斯·里克尔斯（Laurence A.Rickels）在第11章中根据当前的媒体理论重新定位了对俄狄浦斯星座的讨论，引用了流行文学和电影中的例子，他在与弗洛伊德文本的对话中引用了自己的例子，以及沃尔特·本杰明（Walter Benjamin）对寓言和巴洛克哀悼剧的研究。阿维塔尔·罗内尔在第十二章中选择了弗兰兹·卡夫卡作为研究对象，重点讲述了他给父亲的那封著名的信。这封信体现了一个儿子与一位似乎既疏远又无所不在的父母的关系。如果弗洛伊德可能认为他的父亲太软弱，卡夫卡则认为他的父亲过于坚强。卡夫卡打算寄信吗？还是它只是一部虚构的作品？这是文学评论家多年来一直关注的一个问题。罗内尔提供了证据，证明一封信可以大大有助于我们理解人类心理。但在写卡夫卡时，她也选择了一位弗洛伊德时代的作者，他一直是弗洛伊德文本的感兴趣读者。
The present book begins with a discussion of letters (Freud writes to his friend Fliess), and ends with a discussion of a letter (Kafka writes to his father Hermann Kafka). Freud and Kafka were sons trying to come to terms with their fathers. Freud’s letters can be viewed as the origin of psychoanalysis. Kafka’s letter did not even reach its addressee, but today, it has simply become world literature.
本书以信件讨论开始（弗洛伊德写信给他的朋友弗利斯），以信件讨论结束（卡夫卡写信给他的父亲赫尔曼·卡夫卡）。弗洛伊德和卡夫卡是试图与父亲和解的儿子。弗洛伊德的信件可以被视为精神分析的起源。卡夫卡的信甚至没有送达收件人，但今天，它已成为世界文学。
www.psychspace.com心理学空间网
