Kohut 1981 论神入 On Empathy
作者: kohut / 1211次阅读 时间: 2017年10月10日
标签: 共情 神入

On Empathy 论神入

[Editor's note: The following was transcribed from a recording of extemporaneous remarks made by Heinz Kohut at the Fifth Conference on Self Psychology at Berkeley. California, in October 1981. This was Kohut's last public address before he died just a lew days later, these remarks would undoubtedly have been carefully edited by him afterward, to meet his standards for publication. Thev have only been minimally edited here, to enhance clarity by deleting some repetitious phrases, a few extraneous asides, and in order to maintain proper grammatical standards. Editing was also held to a minimum, so as to retain the immediacy, informality, and emotional impact of Kohut's delivery, even at the expense of some "inelegance'' ol style. An earlier transcript, prepared by Robert J. Leider, M.D., in September 1983, for the exclusive use of the Sell Psychology Workshop at the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis, was helpful in the preparation of this version.]

【编者按: 1981年10月,在加利福尼亚的伯克利大学举行的第5次自体心理学大会上,海因兹•科胡特做了一次临时的演讲。本文便是该次演讲的记录。这是科胡特最后一次公开演说,几天之后他便去世了。假如由他自己编辑,那么他必然会对这些论述做更加细致地校订。然而,在这里,这些论述仅仅经过了最低限度地编辑,只是删除了一些重复的词汇和无关的语句,以使叙述更加清晰,并保证文法的通畅。编辑过程是最低限度的,以便保留演讲的临时性、非正式性和科胡特的情绪波动,尽管这使得部分文风有些“粗俗”。本版参考了罗伯特•莱德在1983年9月制作的一份更早的版本,该版是专门为芝加哥精神分析协会的自体心理学讨论会准备的。】

I will summarize in my own way. I would think that many of those who spoke during these meetings, belonging to the intimate circle of my friends and collaborators, have already begun to digest some of my work during the last year or two that is still far from publication, and is not——I'm very persnickety about such things——in that final form that I try to insist on. But I do believe that among the things that I have been writing about, in a book called How Does Analysis Cure? a 150-page essay on the concept of defenses and resistances seen in the light of self psychology, and a broad statement on issues of empathy on various levels of meaning of this term, are the most important ones. And I will address myself to the issue of empathy despite the fact that some couple of years ago I kept saying I'm sick of that topic. It seems to be nonproductive. I hear over and over again the same arguments, and they are so far off my meaning that I had the impression that I was wasting my time, my emotions, my energy that I could use on new ideas and new work. But idiot that I am, I still don't know, despite a fairly long life, and hopefully some attainment of wisdom, that when people keep asking you the same damn question, something must be wrong!


Something is wrong. What is wrong is not what I said in 1959, in this pivotal paper of mine on "Introspection and Empathy," an investigation or an examination of the relationship between mode of observation and theory. This [as the subtitle clearly indicates] was the paper; [it was] not on empathy, on being empathic as an act; [but] only on empathy as a definer of a field, [which is] therefore a field of pure psychology, a field that relates to the inner life of man, the complex mental states—a definition of psychoanalysis that I have proposed many, many years ago already. I think even in one of my presidential addresses, when I was still Mr. Psychoanalysis and in the center of the psychoanalytic movement, even then I said that [psychoanalysis was] the science of complex mental states, [a definition] which bypassed this specific theory, or that specific theory, however important theories may be. It is just as important to realize [the necessity of omitting specific theories from defining our own field of] investigations, as it would be in [connection with defining], let us say, the physical sciences as the sciences that work with the theories of causality, time, and space. By no means is that [explicit inclusion of specific theories in the definition] necessary. There are physical sciences that do not work with the theories of causality, time and space, and yet they are physical sciences. So the same is true for psychoanalysis.


There is another reason why I want to go back to empathy—namely, that I have a sense of responsibility about the abuse of this concept. The fact again that people have acted as if I were abusing it makes me go up on a high horse, and say, "These idiots, they don't read what I write!" But again I should have listened. If they misunderstand (undoubtedly there are also irrational motivations, probably narcissistic ones, competitiveness, God knows what, I don't know, and I don't really want to make these dumb interpretations); the point is that if they misunderstand, other people must misunderstand, too. They will claim that empathy cures. They will claim that one has to be just "empathic" with one's patients and they'll be doing tine. I don't believe that at all! What do I believe?


Before I go into the more exact practical statements aimed to contribute a little bit of antidote to the sentimentalizing perversions in psychotherapy about curing through love, through empathy, through kindness, through compassion, to just being there and being nice and "Yes, I understand you"; before I go into that, I think what I need to do, if I take you seriously, and I think I should, is to define empathy on the various levels on which this concept can be used. And having done that, I believe I can come back again and make clearer what I said in my most recent writings.


Let me first talk about empathy very, very briefly in the way in which I used it in the epistemological sense in 1959. In 1959 I used it, as the beautiful word goes (I never quite understood it, I looked it up sixteen times already in the dictionary; I think by now I do know). In other words, in the most broadly based theorizing about a science, (and these are my words, I always like concrete and palpable words) in a most experience-distant way, a theorizing in the most experience-distant way about a science. As such, that may not be easy for many people to understand. And I thought about why. As such, it is a definer of the field and nothing else. External reality and the sciences that deal with external reality are defined by the operational stance of the observer—namely, extrospection, and I will add for theoretical reasons (although it plays a very small role in the physical sciences) vicarious extrospection, corresponding to empathy. In other words, we not only look at things theoretically, but we also listen to reports of people who have looked at things that we can't see either because we weren't there, we couldn't be there, or because it is totally or forever impossible to be there. Let us

say, for example, scientists will instruct nonscientif ic astronauts what to look for on the moon, what to keep their eyes open for, what particularly clearly to report about. When the astronauts come back, they give their report (free association there is called debriefing), and the scientist evaluates now what he should do with the data. This is vicarious extrospection. [Regarding] events, I mean physical events for example, in the ancient world, we have to rely on eye-witness accounts. When was that eruption of Vesuvius? Tw o different reports come in with slightly different dates to be deducible from them. Now we can think "where is the greater evidence?"  


It seems to me that's very, very similar to what the analyst does about the vicarious introspection of his patient. We cannot see what's going on in him. We instruct him to report what's going on in his inner life. Introspection, pursued in a very particular way, for prolonged periods, with due attention paid to all kinds of obstacles to reporting of things that are unpleasant to report. People in [history], let's say the Greek historians Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, they had axes to grind. You know one was conservative, pro Sparta; the other one was liberal, pro Athens. We have to know that, and then we'll take with a grain of salt what we read and what we really believe. So outpatients of course have axes to grind. Now mind you, I don't want to overdo analogies. I know tremendous differences [exist] too. I'm not suddenly forgetting my whole life as a listening psychoanalyst. I know how to listen to patients. So the analogies [should not be] overdrawn. But they have basic validity, I think. So really introspection and empathy are, in that sense, definers of the field. That means that they are defining our field as the inner life of man and therefore that we are psychologists.




I do not believe, however hard it was tried, that there is a possibility to create such a misalliance as psychobiology, or biopsychology, or something on that order. It was tried and the results of this attempt led to the worst distortions of the perception of man that psychoanalysis is guilty of: the introduction of the drive (not the experience of being driven, not a self lusting and wishing to kill—that's psychology); but "the drive," being processed by an apparatus, being tamed via influences of civilization on the ego that filters the drive. You know, I know my classical analysis so well; and that. . . [There was some laughter in the audience which interrupted Kohut, but then he responded to it] . . . no, I mean that, because I do think that my colleagues don't. They don't even know anymore what I am arguing about. But they have made compromises in a vague way. 1 never do that anymore, I never think that way anymore. I believe all that. But nobody has ever faced up to the issue as the issue deserves. Freud was a genius. This is no way of treating Freud—to by-pass him. Freud has to be respected for what he gave us, and what we can see about the shortcomings of what he did, from our vantage point. And I think that is the respectful attitude toward a genius of some time ago.


Secondly, I would say that introspection and empathy should be looked at as informers of appropriate action. In other words, if you understand, "put yourself into the shoes of," think yourself appropriately into the inner life of another person, then you can use this knowledge for your purposes. Now I don't know how many times I have stressed that these purposes can be of kindness, and these purposes can be of utter hostility. If you want to hurt somebody, and you want to know where his vulnerable spot is, you have to know him before you can put in the right dig. That's very important. When the Nazis attached sirens to their dive bombers, they knew with fiendish empathy how people on the ground would react to that with destructive anxiety. This was correct empathy, but not for friendly purposes. Certainly we assume on the whole that when a mother deals with her child, and when an analyst deals with his patient, correct empathy will inform her appropriate maternal and his appropriate therapeutic analytic action. So [empathy] is an informer of appropriate action, whatever the intentions may he. That's clear, and I don't think it needs any further elaboration, I'm sure.


So, we go to the next of the levels in which we can examine empathy. Empathy serves also, and this is now the most difficult part—namely, that despite all that I have said, empathy, per se, is a therapeutic action in the broadest sense, a beneficial action in the broadest sense of the word. That seems to contradict everything 1 have said so far, and I wish I could just simply bypass it. But, since it is true, and I know it is true, and I've evidence for its being true, I must mention it. Namely, that the presence of empathy in the surrounding milieu, whether used for compassionate, well-intentioned therapeutic, and now listen, even for utterly destructive purposes, is still an admixture of something positive. In other words, there is a step beyond an empathy-informed hatred that wants to destroy you; and an empathyless environment that just brushes you off the face of the earth. The dreadful experiences of prolonged stays in concentration camps during the Nazi era in Germany were just that. It was not cruelly on the whole. (The Nazis were not sadistic or cruel in those camps. There were exceptions of course, it couldn't be otherwise, there are always some exceptions; but that was clearly punished, that was clearly frowned on.1) They totally disregarded the humanness of the victims. They were not human, either fully not human, or almost not human (there was a little shift between,I think, the Jews and the Poles, or something like that, in that respect). That was the worst

'[Editor's note: Neither the search of the literature nor eve-witness accounts substantiate either the absence of sadism or their punishment when these did occur. In fact, all eye-witnesses report frequent and most brutal sadistic acts without evidence of attempts to curb these or to punish the offender. Nevertheless. Kohut's basic thesis that the Nazis aimed at total dehumanization of camp inmates, before and during their extermination, is I hereby not altered.

所以,我们进入下一个层次来考察神入。神入,——现在来到最困难的的部分——即,除我刚才所说的之外,神入本身在最广泛的含义上是一种有益的治疗手段,在这个词语的最广泛的含义上。这似乎反驳了我至今所说的一切,我是希望自己能够绕过它的。但是,既然它是真的,并且我知道它是真的,而且我可以证明它的真理性,那么我就必须提起它。 即,周围环境中神入的存在,无论是被用于慈悲的、出于好意的治疗,现在听好,甚至被用于完全有害的目的,也仍然包含了某种积极的东西。换句话说,有一个阶段超越了一种想要破坏你的神入了的憎恨,和一种想要让你脱离地球表面的无神入的环境。德国纳粹时期长久和可怕的集中营经历就是这种情况。大体上它并不严酷。(纳粹在那些集中营里并不是虐待狂式的或者残忍的。免罪方法当然存在,并且不是例外的情况,一直存在着一些免罪方法;但是那是被明确地惩罚的,那显然会引起纳粹的不悦。)【编者按:无论是文学中的调查还是目击者的档案都不能证实在实行惩罚时不存在虐待行为。实际上,所有目击者都报告了经常性的和最残忍的虐待行为,没有证据显示这些行为得到过控制或惩制。尽管如此,科胡特关于纳粹在覆灭之前致力于将集中营里的人非人化这一基本论点,仍然是不用改变的。】他们完全不理会被害人的人性。他们不是人类,完全不是人类或者几乎不是人类(这之间有一种小变化,我认为,即犹太人和波兰人,或类似的东西,在那一方面)那是最坏的情形。.

There is a touching story—again I come back to the astronauts, you may remember it—of the astronauts when their spaceship, before landing on the moon, was hit by a meteorite, that's the theory. And they seemed to have lost control over it. And they had the choice, if there was indeed a loss of control, to go on circling for many, many weeks with their supplies, or to go back to Earth and—because they couldn't slow down—get scorched and burned up upon entering. As they were discussing this issue among themselves—there was no question in their minds: "We would never want to have our remains circle forever in empty space. Even if we burn up, it's Earth, it's our home." And that, I submit, stands for an empathic human milieu. There are many other examples that I could give you. I will not.有一个动人的故事——我再一次回到了关于宇航员的故事,你们可能还记得——宇航员的飞船在降落到月球上之前,遇到了陨石的撞击,这就像那个理论。他们看起来要对飞船失去控制了。如果真的失去了对飞船的控制,那么他们会面临两个选择,或者带着他们的给养绕行很多很多天,或者返回地球——由于他们无法减速——在进入大气层时烧焦或焚毁。当他们互相讨论这个事情时,他们的心中是毫无疑问的:“我们绝不会让我们的遗骸永远飘荡在太空中。即遍我们被烧毁了,那也是在地球上,那是我们的家。”我提出,那代表了一种神入的人类环境。我还能给你们举出很多例子。不过我不再举了。

1 will at this moment go a little bit on a side [trip] and talk about an aspect of my book that 1 consider to be quite an important one, namely, my differentiation between castration anxiety and disintegration anxiety; between the [fear of] loss of a prized part of the body and the [fear of] wiping out of the [whole] self. I won't talk about castration anxiety, everybody knows what that is. But disintegration anxiety is not so easy. Disintegration anxiety means the loss of empathy, the loss of an empathic milieu, the loss of an understanding milieu, not necessarily of the correct action, but the loss of any understanding. There are children with horrible mothers and fathers, misunderstanding their kids, reacting to them in horrible ways (oh. of course, they show the scars when they grow up); but the worst suffering I've seen in adult patients is in those very subtle, and difficult to uncover, absences of the mother—because her personality is absent. Nothing will be told about it, because the patient assumes this is the milieu in which people grow up. He had been made to feel guilty all his life for yearning for something else, for making demands. And the mother rightly made him [feel] guilty because he demanded something that just wasn't in her to give. It is the hidden psychosis of the mother, a much more frequent early circumstance, than has been understood. It is a psychosis of the mother that Kafka described so well in The Castle—the attempt to come close and yet there is absolutely no response; or in The Trial—the wish to know what he's guilty about. There is no guilt, he's just disregarded, the knife turns and he's—that's the end of him. Metamorphosis—the changing to an ugly insect because the parents in the next room speak of him in the third person singular—he's doing that, he's doing that, clearly excluding him. Sometimes the reports are very subtle and you have to be very, very perceptive to grasp them. In one of my patients, it was the mother's hiding behind bridge cards. Whenever he came, there were those bridge cards between him and her. But she had nothing to give. It is this emptiness that leads to the worst sufferings later in life.


Well now, how does all this fit with what probably is the most important point that I made in Hmv Does Analysis (hire? I submit that the most important point that I made was that analysis cures by giving explanations—interventions on the level of interpretation; not by "understanding," not by repeating and confirming what the patient feels and says, that's only the first step; but then [the analyst has] to move on and give an interpretation. In analysis an interpretation means an explanation of what is going [on] in genetic, dynamic, and psychoeconomic terms. I, for some reason, don't want to open the can of worms of Hartmann's adaptive point of view now—which I believe is a foreign body in analysis, however, brilliant this bridging concept to sociology may be. But I believe that the move from understanding to explaining, from confirming that the analyst knows what the patient feels and thinks and imagines (that he's in tune with his inner life), and the next step of giving of interpretations is a move from a lower form of empathy to a higher form of empathy. Interpretations are not intellectual constructions. If they are, they won't work; [they might work] accidentally, but not in principle. A good analyst reconstructs the childhood past in the dynamics of the current transference with warmth, with understanding for the intensity of the feelings, and with the fine understanding of the various secondary conflicts that intervene as far as the expression of these [childhood wishes and needs] are concerned. The paradigm, or should I rather say (because that's now a loaded word too, for some crazy reason), the prototype, the prototype of this shift—this two-step move from understanding to explaining—is, in childhood, a particular situation that I described, hopefully with feeling, in my new work, How Does Analysis Cure? I [cited there the example of] a child and his mother in the park. The child, as a young child always [does], clung to the mother. But the sun was shining, pigeons were walking around there. All of a sudden, the child felt a new buoyancy and daring and he moved away from the mother, toward the pigeons. He went three to four steps, and then he looked back. The general interpretation of that is that the child is anxious; he wants to be sure he can come back to be encased by the mother's arms again, cradled, etc. I think all that is true. But something much more important is true. He wants to see the mother's proud smile of his achievement. He wants to see her pride, "look at him moving out now, on his own, isn't it wonderful?" And at this moment something extremely important has happened. A low form of empathy, a body-close form of empathy, expressed in holding and touching and smelling, is now expressed only in facial expressions and perhaps later in words, "I'm proud of you, my boy." Now that's an interpretation, or at least it is the parallel to the interpretation in psychoanalysis. How? I told you already—there is understanding that is sort of like the bodily holding, a merger, and then that is given up later on (in some sick people it might take a long time before one can actually make the next step); and then as the next step is made, it is on a much higher form of empathy, empathy in a complex way, with [explanation of] the past and how the present repeats it, all the forces that are involved—and given careful expression, it's still empathy. It's still psychological (and in that sense on a higher level), [it is now an] understanding [of] the message. I think that's extremely important, and shows you that what you really need to investigate carefully is what I've come to call the developmental line of empathy—from its early archaic beginnings, to such high levels as barely touching, as barely still having any trace of the original holding that communicates the empathic understanding. So that essentially tells you what I think about empathy. It is something that I could talk about for a long, long time.


But as I said, and with that I want to close, I bring this up for many, many reasons. But one of the main reasons is the responsibility that I feel that you must not abuse the concept of empathy for vaguely supportive measures, but grasp the idea of what empathy is, in fact, on various levels of its development. Certainly I'm not stodgy, and I think the more one knows, the greater one's freedom. The more one knows, the less important some ritual that one sticks to anxiously, because no one knows what is appropriate and what is inappropriate. There is always the question of how to treat people with very serious self disturbances, who cannot possibly benefit from interpretations. I believe. It's too soon, and for many years, they do need an empathic understanding on the closest level that we can muster. And it does not mean that one cannot move naturally, slowly, and gradually into higher forms of empathy and explaining, much, much, much later on.

但是正如我说的,而且我想用它来结束的,我将其提了出来,出于很多很多种原因。但是其中一个主要的原因是我感到有责任,你们一定不要为了模糊的支持措施而滥用神入的概念,要抓住什么是神入这一观点,实际上,在各种各样的发展水平上。当然我不是平凡人,我认为一个人知道的越多,一个人的自由也就越多。一个人知道的越多,既有惯例就显得越不重要, 因为没有人知道什么是合适的和不合适的。如何对待拥有非常严重自体困扰的人们的问题一直存在,他们不能从解释中受益。我相信。它太快了,多年以来,他们需要一个神入的理解,在我们所能的最近的水平上。这并不意味着一个人不能自然地、慢慢的进步到更高形式的神入和解释,很久以后。

I remember, and I think I'll close my remarks this morning with this, I believe, telling story. About fifteen years ago I was engaged in a long, long analysis with a woman who was extremely vulnerable. She lay down on the couch the first time she came, having interrupted a previous analysis abruptly. She said she felt like lying in a coffin, and that now the top of the coffin would be closed with a sharp click. I'm telling it to you that way, because it expressed so well what she felt. She was deeply depressed, and at times I thought I would lose her—that she would finally find a way out of the suffering and kill herself. But I didn't. At one time at the very worst moment of her analysis, during the first year or perhaps year and a half, she was so badly off I suddenly had the feeling [and said]: "How would you feel if I let you hold my fingers, for a little while now while you are talking? Maybe that would help you." Doubtful maneuver. I am not recommending it, but I was desperate. I was deeply worried. So I gave her two fingers, moved up a little bit in my chair, gave her two fingers. And now I'll tell you what is so nice about that story. Because an analyst always remains an analyst. I gave her my two fingers. She took a hold of them, and I immediately made a genetic interpretation to myself. It was the toothless gums of a very young child clamping down on an empty nipple. That was the way it felt. I didn't say anything. I don't know whether it was right. But I reacted to it even there, to myself, as an analyst. [After this one occasion] that was never necessary anymore. I wouldn't say that it turned the tide, but it overcame a very, very difficult impasse at a given dangerous moment, and gaining time that way we went on for many, many more years with a reasonably substantial success.

我记得,今天早上我认为我将结束我的讲话,我相信,用讲故事的方式。大约十五年前我参与了一个很长时间的分析,对象是一名极其易受伤害的女性。第一次来的时候她躺倒在沙发上,此前曾经突然中断过一次分析。她说她感觉像是躺在一个棺材里,感觉观察的盖子将会带着剧烈的响声关闭。我以那样的方式向你们讲述,是因为它如此好地表达了她 感受。她深深地抑郁着,而且有时候我想我可能会失去她——她将最后找到一种逃离这种痛苦的方式,杀死她自己。但是我没有失去她。在分析过程的一个最困难的时刻,第一年或者也许一年半的某次分析中,她的情况是如此地糟糕,我突然有了一个感觉并且说道:“如果我让你握住我的手指你会感觉怎么样?持续一会儿,同时保持说话。也许那样会帮到你。”我并不确信能否成功。我并不是在推荐它,实际上我是孤注一掷。我深深地担心着。然后我给了她两个手指,在我的手臂上向上移动了一点,给了她两个手指。接下来我我将告诉你们这个故事是如此美好。因为分析师永远是分析师。我给了她两个手指。她握住它们,我立刻给了自己一个起源学的解释。那是一个非常小的婴孩的没有牙齿的牙床对乳头的压力。那就是它给我的感觉。我什么也没说。我不知道这样做是否正确。但是我甚至在那里对它做出了反应,对我自己,作为一个分析师。这次之后,那就再也不不是必要的了。我不会说它扭转了局势,但是它克服了一个非常非常困难的僵局,在一个危险的时刻,而且为我们赢得了时间,使我们得以继续很多很多年,获得相当大量的成功。

So with that I think I will now close. I'm very glad you waited for me. I'm quite sure this will be the last self psychology meeting that I will attend, but I wanted to do my utmost to be able to go through with my promise. So, let's all hope for a good future for the ideas embodied in self psychology. Good-bye.


TAG: 共情 神入
«科胡特的一次关于来访者的愤怒以及咨询师的反移情的演讲 科胡特 | Heinz Kohut
《科胡特 | Heinz Kohut》
延伸阅读· · · · · ·