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)
I. INTRODUCTORY DEFINITION
1、介绍性的定义
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.
情感或确切的支持,还是请求一个准许,娇宠都是恳求放纵的行为,并且假定了一个家庭或亲近亲密的程度。通常而言,娇宠是婴儿或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。
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来源于其形容词形式甜蜜的(amai)【译注:日语甘い】,意思是“甜蜜的味道”。邀宠(Amaeru)是作为“得到”或“获得”之意的后缀eru加上甜蜜(amai)的动词组合。因此动词邀宠(amaeru)的字面意思是获得甜蜜。在通常的用法中,邀宠(amaeru)指的是孩子般的行为、引诱出放纵的依赖性,以获得其所需之物:无论是亲情、身体上的亲密,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.
在日本人的人际交往中,娇宠和邀宠行为在家庭环境之外和童年之后都可以看到。这可能会出现在亲密的个人友谊之间、亲密的夫妻关系之间、大家庭之中、或者发生在如同学或队友这种有粘附性的小团体之中。在权力或地位差异的关系中也可以看到这种现象,如教师/学生,老板/下属,或资深/初级同事之间。根据不同的人际环境,娇宠的现象一方面作为关系强弱的能指被广泛接受,但另一方面,它可以视为一个人不成熟的、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、文化方面的模式互动,在这种模式之中,悬空了一般性的礼仪礼节规则,允许人们彼此接受和给予对自我的深情支持”(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术语的定义进一步被Daniel Freeman(1998)进一步扩展为“在服务于自我之时的彼此互动退行,以满足和服务于参与双方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.
在任何欧洲与拉丁美洲语言的IPA字典或词汇中都没有娇宠这个条目,同时,到目前为之,这个词很大程度上仍旧不被更广泛的精神分析公众所知。本条目建立并扩展了以上的情况。
II. CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT
2、概念的发展
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:
土居健朗在他1971出版的《甘えの構造 Amae no kōzō》【译注:英文版为The Anatomy of Dependence,中文第二版为《日本人的心理结构》】中介绍并强调了作为一种心理现象的娇宠概念,这本书在1973年翻译给了西方读者。他描述了日本社会和临床互动中的各种各样的娇宠,以及娇宠的概念在理解日本人心理的重要先进思想。他将娇宠(amae)翻译为“依赖或情绪的依赖”(1973)。并将邀宠(amaeru)定义为,“依赖和指望别人的善行(benevolence)”(1973)。他认为这种行为显示了“在无助感之中的依赖需求”并表达了“被爱之需求”的治疗需求,并认为,该行为等同于依赖的需要。他认为,这个存在yu于婴儿与母亲关系中的心理原型,并不是新生儿,而是已经意识到母亲独立于自己存在的一个婴儿(Doi,1973)。土居在后来的出版物(1989)中拓展了娇宠的动力学模型:
“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).