로그인 | 클럽홈 | Koreadaily

혁신라이프코칭연수원 ICC

http://club.koreadaily.com/icclifecoach
전체글보기 클럽방명록  공동체 영상 정보   ICC 안내자료   도시와 자연의 영상 
 
  클럽정보
운영자 simonshin
비공개 개설 2016.07.20
인기도 596964
회원 79명
공동체 영상 정보 (82)
ICC 안내자료 (93)
ICP 안내자료 (74)
도시와 자연의 영상 (88)
신현근 박사 영상 강의 
정신분석의핵심개념 (11)
애도와 상실 (10)
Karen Horney의 정신분석 (74)
대인관계 정신분석 2 (35)
자아심리학 2 (34)
고전적 정신분석 (Freud) (168)
병리적 자기애와 공격성 (Kernberg) (60)
자기 심리학 (Kohut) (81)
임상 기법과 임상감독 (12)
인간성장이론 (9)
전이와 저항 (60)
클라인(Klein) 학파의 대상관계 이론과 그 역사 (42)
정신분열증 (1)
상호주관적 관계적 정신분석 (8)
강의안과 발제문 
현대정신분석의핵심개념 (5)
라이프코치양성 (23)
진단과평가 (17)
현대갈등이론 (13)
전인격적라이프코칭 (8)
회원자료 (5)
무의식적환상 (22)
현대정신분석의개입기법 (35)
정서적의사소통 (15)
정신분석기법과정신적 갈등 (23)
정신분석적사례이해 (26)
방어기제 (24)
정신분석의역사 (47)
고전적 정신분석 기법 (19)
신경증이론 (23)
대상관계이론의역사 (14)
자아심리학 (23)
현대정신분석 이론 (25)
페어베언의 성격 이론 (24)
성년기 발달 이론 (13)
위니코트의 대상관계 이론 (19)
ICC의 목표
추천링크
ICC YouTube
ICC 웹사이트
ICP, Seoul Korea
ICC 대표 신현근 박사
ICC의 네이버 블로그
ICC의 Moment 블로그
혁신라이프코칭학회 ICS
ICC의 Facebook Page
ICS의 Facebook Page
HeyKorean ICC
한국일보 블로그
ICP YouTube
 
TODAY : 594명
TOTAL : 962040명
대인관계 정신분석 2
작성자  simonshin 작성일  2018.08.06 22:28 조회수 288 추천 0
제목
 발제문 (권장순님): Theoretical models and the analyst’s neutrality 1   
 

과목대인관계 정신분석

주제: Theoretical models and the analyst’s neutrality 1

지도신현근/김양자 교수

발제자권장순님

교재:

Stern, D. B, & Hirsh, I (eds.) (2018). Further Developments in interpersonal psychoanalysis, 1980s-2010s: Evolving interest in the analyst’s subjectivity. London and New York; Routledge.

 

 

Theoretical Models and the Analysts Neutrality 1

Jay R. Greenberg, Ph.D.

 

심리학에서의  가지 문제는 매우 혼란스럽거나일반화 시키는데 관계와 이론과 기술에서 임상의의 정신에 아주  혼란을 가져 오는 경향이 있다이것에 대한 많은 이유가 있고이론을 만드는 작업의 종류와 임상 현장의 작업의 종류 사이의 일이  맞지 않는 것과 관련해(빈약한 매치에하나의 방식이나 다른 방식이 모두 연관되어 있다이것의  가지 측면은 본질적으로 공개되는 활동과 근본적으로 사적인 활동 사이의 피할  없지만 충격적 불일치이다이론화는 필연적으로 공개적으로 이루어진다그들의 본질에(성격에따른 이론적 기여는 반드시 적어 두거나 큰소리로 말해야합니다토론을  모든 참가자는 의미가 무엇이든 반드시 필요한 것은 아니라고 말한 것에 접근   있다반면에 기술은 분명히 사적이다분석을 구성하는 모든 거래(업무) 대한 기록이 없으며원칙적으로그러한 기록도 존재할  없다.

 때문에이론적 원리를 기술적 교훈으로 번역하면 관찰 밖에서 벗어날  있다결국적용된 이론은 필연적으로 이론이 해석되는 것이다개인의 취향은 적용에 특이하고 결정적인 배역을 제공한다분석가의 인간 삶에 대한 특별한 비전을 거치면서 자신의 성격은 말할 것도 없이 이론의 영향을 추적하기는 어렵다.

이론적인 전제를 개별  분석자의 삶의 역사에 간단히 적용함으로써 유익한 분석이 "책에서"성취   없다는 것은 흔한 일이다그러나 이론의 영향력에 대한 기술을 박탈하는 것은 똑같이 해롭다. Joseph Sandler(1983) 지적한 것처럼 모든 분석가는 적어도 사전에 의식적으로 이론을 염두에 두고 있는 것은 사실이다.

- 87 -

 

공식적인 학문으로서의 이론 작성은 분석가가 자신의 가정을 분명히 하고 다른 사람들의 작업을 알리는 대안에 관해 평가할 것을 요구한다 규율은 우리가 직관력공감또는 실용주의에 대한 후순위 이론을 가지고 있다고 주장하면서넓은 정신적 공동체 안에서 정신 분석학에 나쁜 언론을 부여한 naive고지식하고 sterile쓸모없는 주장에 대한 후퇴를 방지한다.

Despite the poor fit between theory and technique, it is nevertheless possible to draw important technical conclusions from broad theoretical premises. Mitchell and I have addressed this extensively with respect to one technical issuethe analysts interpretive armamentarium. We have documented the ways in which the theoretical model which an analyst implicity or explicitily holds will determine the content of his interpretations (Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983). 이론과 기술 사이의 부적합 함에도 불구하고광범위한 이론적인 전제로부터 중요한 기술적 결론을 도출   있다. Mitchell 저는  가지 기술적 문제분석가의 해석 armamentarium설비에 관해서  문제를 광범위하게 다루었다우리는 분석가가 함축적으로 또는 명시적으로 보유하고 있는 그의 해석 내용을 결정하는 이론적 모델에 있어서의 방법을 문서화했다(Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983). In this paper, I will address the implications that models have for the analysts stance within the psychoanalytic situation. I will be particularly concerned with the much maligned but, as I hope to demonstrate, still useful concept of analytic neutrality. I will discuss the origin of the neutrality concept in Freuds early theory, the problems which remain attached to it because of its roots in that theory, and the improvements which can emerge from re-defining it on the basis of modified theoretical premises.  논문에서는 정신 분석적 상황에서 분석가의 입장에 대한 모델의 함의에 대해 설명  것이다나는 특히 악의가 많지만 분석적 중립성에 대한 유용한 개념을 보여주기를 희망한다나는 프로이트의 초기 이론에서 중립 개념의 근원이론에 뿌리가 남아있는 문제들그리고 수정된 이론적 전제에 기초하여 그것을 재정의함으로써 나타날  있는 개선에 대해 논의  것이다.

In our book, Mitchell and I distinguished two major competing models which have dominated the history of psychoanalytic theory: we labeled them the drive/structure model and the relation/structure model. The drive/structure model originated in the early work of Freud, and was developed and maintained in his later work and in that of his major followers within the "orthodox" psychoanalytic tradition. The relational/structure model was prefigured in the early dissents of Adler and Jung, and emerged fully, albeit independently, in the theories of Fairbairn and Sullivan. 우리 책에서 Mitchell 나는 정신 분석 이론의 역사를 지배해온  가지 주요 경쟁 모델을 구별했다 우리는 그것들을 드라이브/구조 모델과 관계/구조 모델이라고 명명했다드라이브/구조 모델은 프로이트의 초기 작업에서 유래되었으며 후기 작업과 "정통파정신 분석적 전통 안에서 그의 주요 추종자들의 발전에서 개발되고 유지되었다관계형/구조 모델은 Adler Jung 초기 이견에서 미리 구성되었고 Fairbairn Sullivan 이론에서 완전히독립적으로 나타났다. It has been developed in various ways by many of those typically designated as object relations or interpersonal theorists. The models themselves are broad groupings of theoriesthey are envelopes which contain compatible although by no means identical points of view. 그것은 일반적으로 대상 관계 또는 대인  이론가로 지정된 많은 사람들에 의해 다양한 방식으로 개발되었다모델 자체는 이론의  넓은 그룹으로 구성되어 있다이들은 비록 동일한 견해는 아니지만 호환 가능한 것을 내포하고 있다.

Approached from the perspective of their implications for the analysts clinical stance, two characteristics distinguishing the models require special mention. First, the drive/structure model is an individual psychology, while the relational/structure model is a field theory. This decisively affects the way that each model understands

- 88 -

the position of the analyst as an observer. 분석가의 임상적 입장에 대한 암시의 관점에서 접근  모델을 구별하는  가지 특징은 특별한 언급이 필요하다첫째관계 이론/구조 모델은 현장 이론  반면드라이브/구조 모델은 개별적인 심리학입니다이것은  모델이 관찰자로서의 분석가의 입장을 이해하는 방식에 결정적으로 영향을 미친다.

Secondly, the models attribute psychic structure, the source of regularity and pattern in emotional life generally and in psychopathology particularly, to different processes. The drive model understands structure as the transformation of original drive energies, while the relational model sees structure as the developmental sequelae of early interpersonal exchanges. I will address each of these fundamental premises in turn, beginning with the premises of the drive model. 둘째모델은 정신구조일반적으로 정서적인 삶의 규칙성  패턴의 원천특히 정신 병리학의 원인을 다른 프로세스에 부여한다드라이브 모델은 원래의 드라이브 에너지의 변환으로 구조를 이해하는 반면관계형 모델은 구조를 초기 대인 관계의 변화의 발달 후유증으로 간주합니다나는 드라이브 모델의 전제에서 시작하여 이러한 기본 전제를 차례로 다룰 것이다.

Freuds model of the analysts role is based on the position of the observing scientist as that was understood in the 19th century. The Spanish philosopher Ortega y Gasset critically characterized this scientific attitude well:

At last man is to know the truth about everything. It suffices that he should should not lose heart at the complexity of the problems, and that he should allow no passion to cloud his mind. If with serene self-mastery he uses the apparatus of his intellect, if in particular he uses it in orderly fashion, he will find that his faculty of thought is ratio, reason, and that in reason he posseses the almost magic power of reducing everything to clarity, of turning what is most opaque to crystal, penetrating it by analysis until it is become self-evident (1940, pp. 170171). 분석가의 역할에 대한 프로이드의 모델은 19세기에 이해된 관찰하는 과학자의 입장을 기반으로 한다스페인 철학자인 Ortegay Gasset 과학적 태도를 비판적으로특징 지었다 마침내 사람은 모든 것에 대한 진실을 안다이것은 문제의 복잡성에 마음을 빼앗아서는 안되며그는 마음을 흐트러 뜨리려는 열정이 없는 것을 허용해야 한다. 고요한 자제력으로 그는 자신의 인지(지성) 기관를 사용한다면특히 그가 정돈된 방식으로그것을 사용한다면그는 그의 사고 능력이 비율이유이며 그것이 모든 것을 감소시키는그것이 자기 확신이  때까지 분석가에 의해 가장 불명료한 것을 분명하게 하고 분석에 의해 관통하게 하는 거의 마법의 힘을 가지고 있음을 알게  것이다(1940, pp. 170-171).

Compare Freuds statement in a letter to Theodore Reik that "scientific research must be without presumptions. In every other kind of thinking the choice of a point of view cannot be avoided" (1928p. 196, my italics).

테오도르 레이크 (Teradore Reik) 보낸 편지에서 Freud 진술은 "과학적 연구는 전제가없어애만 한다 것이다다른 모든 종류의 사고에서도 견해의 선택을 피할  없다"(1928p. 196, 이탤릭체).

Freuds comment embodies a formulation which contemporary philosophers would consider to represent an outmoded, not to say particularly presumptuous, notion about the nature of scientific investigation. Derived from the Cartesian philosophy of science, which Ortega mocks, this formulation holds essentially that the observer stands outside of his observational field. His externality brings with it a

kind of univolvement, using that word in its structural and emotional senses. It is this very uninvolvement that allows the impartial application of reason, and which facilitates the emergence of truth.

Freud 논평은 현대 철학자들이 과학적 조사의 본질에 대해 특히 예상치 못한 개념을 말하는 것이 아니라 구식을 대표하는 것으로 간주   있는 공식을 구체화한다데카르트 철학에서 분기한 오르테갈 mocks,  형식화는 근본적으로 관찰자가 그의 관찰하는 장의 바깥에  있는 것을 근본적으로 holds유지한다영역 밖에  있다는 것을 본질적으로 가지고 있다그의 외면은 그것의 구조적이고 정서적인 감각에서  단어를 사용하여 일종의 일원화를 가져온다이성의 공정한 적용을 허용하고 진실의 출현을 용이하게 하는 것은 바로  무관심이다.

 

Freud did not develop a comprehensive, systematic set of principles regarding the analysts clinical stance. His comparison of technique to the rules of chess, emphasizing the near infinite variability of procedures during the prolonged middle phase of analysis, suggests that full systematization is undesirable or even impossible

- 89 -

(Freud, 1913). I suspect that Freudin contrast to many of his followershad an inclination to give the individual clinician wide berth and to let technique evolve out of the peculiar mix of personalities that creates and defines each analytic encounter. At the same time, his individual technical guidelines do hang together; 프로이트는 분석가의 임상 입장과 관련하여 포괄적이고 체계적인 원칙을 개발하지 않았다장기간의 분석 중간 단계 동안절차의 거의 무한한 다양성을 강조하는 체스 규칙에 대한 그의 기술 비교는 완전한 체계화가 바람직하지 않거나 심지어 불가능하다는 것을 암시한다 (Freud, 1913). 나는 많은 그의 추종자들과는 대조적으로 프로이트는 개인 임상가에게 다양한 진료를 제공하고  분석적 만남을 만들고 정의하는 특별한 개성의 혼합을 통해 진화 하도록하는 경향이 있다고 추측한다동시에그의 개별 기술 지침은 서로 어울린다; they have much in common because they share a root in his attitude toward science. The posture of "evenly-hovering attention, " the "blank screen" or "reflecting mirror" analogies, and the suggestion of an attitude of "surgical detachment" (Freud, 1912) ; (1913) all derive from the idea of the externality, objectivity, and impartiality of the analyst-observer. 그들은 과학에 대한 자신의 태도에서 뿌리를 공유하기 때문에 공통점이 많습니다. "균등하게 떠오르는 주의", " 화면또는 "반사경유추의 자세그리고 "외과  분리"(Freud, 1912) 태도에 대한 제안; (1913) 모두 분석가 관찰자의 외재성객관성  공평성에 대한 아이디어에서 유래했다.

If a philosophy of science dictates the desirability and even the possibility of externality and full impartiality, we still need a psychology to define the forces among which the analyst must be impartial. This is where the psychodynamic and structural hypotheses of the drive/structure model are decisive. To state these briefly, the model holds that psychic structure, with the partial exception of autonomous ego aspects of the undifferentiated matrix, evolves out of the transformation of the energy of constitutionally determined sexual and aggressive drives. On the basis of different levels of exposure to environmental influence, and consequently with different degrees of distance from the original drive aims, the three structures, id, ego and superego, emerge. 과학 철학의 바람직함과 심지어 외재적 이고 완전한 공평성의 가능성을 요구한다면우리는 분석가가 공정하여야 한다는  가운데 힘을 정의하도록 하는 심리가 여전히 필요하다구조 모델의 심리 역동  구조적 가설이 결정적인 부분이다이것들을 간략하게 기술하기 위해모델은 미분화 행렬의 자율적 ego자아 측면을 부분적으로 제외하고는 정신 구조가 체질적으로 결정된 성적이고 공격적인 드라이브의 에너지의 변화로부터 진화한다고 한다환경 영향에 대한 다양한 노출 수준을 바탕으로 그리고 결과적으로 원래 드라이브 목표로부터 다른 거리의 정도를 기반으로 하여 id, 자아  초자아의  구조가 나타난다. Each structure embodies a more or less consistent pattern of needsit is this relative consistency of the structures themselves and of the balance among them that allows us to conceptualize a regularity which we call personality and/or psychopathology. It is also these structure, and their mutual influences, which constitute the observational field for the drive model analyst.

각각의 구조는 어느 정도 일치된 요구 패턴을 구현한다.- 구조 자체의 상대적 일관성과 우리가 성격 /또는 정신 병리학이라고 부르는 규칙성을 개념화   있게 해주는 그것들 가운데 균형이 있다이것은 또한 드라이브 모델 분석가를 위한 관찰 영역을 구성하는 이러한 구조와 그들의 상호 영향이다.

The philosophical and psychological premises of the drive model converge in the technical principle of neutrality. Freud himself used the term neutrality rarely. It first appears in the context of advice to analysts about how to handle patients declarations of love. Responding in kind, whether encouragingly or discouragingly, will defeat the analysis, Freud warns, and he goes on to say that "… we ought not to give up the neutrality toward the patient, which we have acquired through keeping the counter-transference in check" (1915p. 164). 드라이브 모델의 철학적  심리적 전제는 중립성의 기술적 원칙에 수렴합니다프로이트 자신도 거의 중립이라는 용어를 사용하지 않았습니다먼저 애널리스트에게 환자의 사랑 선언을 처리하는 방법에 대한 조언의 맥락에서 나타납니다프로이트 박사는 경고를 무시하거나 부정적이든 상관없이  분석을 무시할 것이라고 경고하면서 그는 "우리는 역동을 유지함으로써 얻은 환자에 대한 중립성을 포기해서는 안된다" 경고했다. "(1915p. 164). Freud went no further in spelling out what he intended neutrality to mean. In fact, despite its being a keystone of the traditional conceptualization of the analytic posture,

- 90 -

a formal definition of neutrality did not appear until Anna Freud suggested one in 1936. In The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense Anna Freud wrote:

It is the task of the analyst to bring into consciousness that which is unconscious, no matter to which psychic institution it belongs. He directs his attention equally and objectively to the unconscious elements in all three institutions. To put it in another way, when he sets about the work of enlightenment, he takes his stand at a point equidistant from the id, the ego, and the superego (1936p. 28).

프로이드는 중립성을 의미하는 것을 철자함에 있어  이상 진전이 없었다실제로 Anna Freud 1936  제시한 분석적 자세에 대한 전통적인 개념화의 핵심 개념 임에도 불구하고 중립성의 공식적인 정의는 나타나지 않았다자아와 방어 메커니즘에서 Anna Freud 다음과 같이 적었다.

그것이 속해있는 정신 기관에 상관없이의식이 없는 의식을 의식에 들여 오는 것은 분석가의 임무이다그는 모든  기관의 무의식 요소에 동등하고 객관적으로 관심을 집중합니다다른 말로하면깨달음의 일에 착수  그는 이드자아초자아로부터 등거리 (1936p, 28)에서 등거리 지점에 서있는 입장을 취한다.

 

 

Notice in this the assumptions I have been discussing. There is the objectivity borne of externality, the rationality leading to enlightenment, the impartiality of the reasonable observer. Also, of course, there are the dynamic forces contained within the tripartite organization of the structural model. Joseph Lichtenberg has summarized this: "… the dictatorship of truth and reason irrevocably commits itself to being open-mindedeach element in the individualimpulses, ego, and superego will therefore receive the position it deserves" (1983p. 207).  가정에서 제가 논의하고있는 것에 주목하십시오외부성객관성계승으로 이끄는 합리성합리적인 관찰자의 공평성이 있다물론 구조 모델의  조직 내에 포함  동적힘이 있습니다. Joseph Lichtenberg 다음과 같이 요약했다. "진리와 이성에 대한 독재 정권은 열린 마음으로 돌이킬  없도록 개혁을 단행합니다개인의  요소 충동자아초자아는 그에 상응하는 지위를 얻습니다"(1983p. 207). The neutrality concept is not particularly popular in many analytic circles recently. To understand why, let us turn to the Oxford English Dictionary. There neutrality is defined in various ways. For the analyst, the first definition is useful as well as dangerous: "Not assisting or actively taking the side of either party in the case of a war or disagreement between … states; remaining inactive in relation to the belligerent powers." This is close to what Anna Freud had in mind, but notice the stress on inactivity. 중립성 개념은 최근 많은 분석계에서 특히 인기가 없습니다이유를 이해하려면 Oxford English Dictionary 이동하십시오중립성은 다양한 방법으로 정의됩니다애널리스트의 경우  번째 정의는 위험 할뿐만 아니라 유용합니다. "전쟁이나 국가  의견 불일치시 상대방을 도울  없거나 능동적으로 취하지 않고 호전적인 힘과 관련하여 활동하지 않습니다." 이것은 Anna Freud 염두에 두었던 것과 비슷하지만비활성에 주목하라. Some analysts mistakenly believe that impartiality is best achieved through inactivity. But even if inactivity is possible politically, as the dictionary suggests, it is never possible interpersonally. Hoffman (1983) and Wachtel (1982) have both argued persuasively that no behavior of the analyst can be considered simply inactive. Rather, all the analysts behaviors must be understood as activity of one sort or another. 일부 분석가들은 공정성이  활동을 통해 가장  달성된다고 잘못 생각합니다그러나 사전이 암시 하듯이 활동이 없더라도 정치적인 것이 가능하다. Hoffman (1983) Wachtel (1982) 애널리스트의 행동이 단순히 비활성으로 간주   없다는 것을 설득력있게 주장했다오히려 모든 분석가의 행동은  종류의 또는 다른 활동으로 이해 되어야한다.

Because of this difficulty, even among those currently relying on neutrality as the keystone of a correct clinical posture, there remains considerable confusion about how it is best expressed within the psychoanalytic situation. Considered broadly, there is general agreement that neutrality has to do with not imposing values on the patient and with keeping countertransference in check. Chused has nicely characterized a neutral attitude as "a

- 91 -

nonjudgmental willingness to listen and learn" (1982p. 3). Poland has put it this way: 이러한 어려움으로 인해 현재 올바른 중립 자세의 중추를 중립적  것으로 여기는 사람들 중에서도 정신 분석적 상황에서 가장  표현되는 방법에 대해서는 상당한 혼란이 남아 있습니다대체로 중립성은 환자에게 가치를 부과하지 않고 역동을 유지하는 것과 관련이 있다는 일반적인 합의가 있습니다. Chused 중립적 태도를 "듣고 배우려는 비판적 의도" 멋지게 특징 지었다 (1982p3). 폴란드는 그것을 다음과 같이 표현했다 :"Neutrality is the technical manifestation of respect for the essential otherness of the patient" (1984p. 289). The plot thickens, however, when it comes to realizing these attitudes in terms of technical proceduresfor example, in determining their relationship to issues such as level of responsiveness, expressions of encouragement, or enforcement of conditions of abstinence (see Panel, 1984). "중립성은 환자의 본질적인 타자성에 대한 존중의 기술적 표현"(1984p, 289). 그러나 대응 태도격려의 표현절제 조건의 시행과 같은 이슈와의 관계를 결정하는 것과 같은 기술 절차의 관점에서 이러한 태도를 실현하는  있어서는 계획이 두껍게 나타난다 (Panel, 1984 참조) . Most authors who use the term translate it into behaviors such as non-responsiveness or anonymity. There is a tendency when discussing neutrality to equate non-alignment and colorlessness.  용어를 사용하는 대부분의 저자는  반응성이나 익명  같은 행동으로 해석합니다중립성을 논의    정렬 성과 무색을 동일시하는 경향이 있습니다.

These clinical applications of the neutrality concept are reflected in subsidiary definitions in the dictionary. Indifference and colorlessness appear there among the meanings of the term (see Poland, 1984). On this account, as a summary statement of an analytic stance, "neutrality" seems pallid, failing to capture the intensity of the emotional experience that clinical encounters are or should be. Many clinicians feel that as a term neutrality is too cold and aloof, that it doesnt convey the kind of affirmation that patients not only need but typically get in a well conducted treatment. 이러한 중립성 개념의 임상  적용은 사전의 보조 정의에 반영됩니다무미건조와 무색은  용어의 의미 중에 거기에 나타난다 (폴란드, 1984 참조). 따라서 분석 태도에 대한 요약 진술로서 "중립성" 경미한 것처럼 보이며 임상  조우가 있어야하거나 필요로하는 정서적 경험의 강도를 포착하지 못합니다많은 임상가들은 용어 중립성이 너무 차갑고 가벼므로 환자가 필요하지만 일반적으로  수행된 치료를 받는다고 하는 종류의 확인을 전달하지 않는다고 생각한다.

Why should psychoanalysis be stuck with a concept which inextricably ties impartial acceptance of all parts of the patients personality to the analysts inactivity and non-expressiveness? The reason, I believe, is traceable to neutralitys roots in the epistemological premises of the drive/structure model.  정신 분석은 분석가의  활동성과  표현성에 환자의 성격의 모든 부분을 공평하게 받아들이는 개념을 고수해야 하는가 이유는 드라이브 구조 모델의 인식 론적 전제에서 중립의 뿌리까지 추적 가능하다고 나는 믿는다. There is a direct line from the Cartesian stress on the observers potential externality and objectivity to the drive models equation of non-alignment with non-participation. Inactivity in the interest of discovery is at least an apparently logical next step. 관찰자의 잠재력과 객관성에 대한 데카르트의 스트레스로부터의 직접적인 선은  참여와의  정렬의 구동 모형의 방정식에 이른다발견을 위한  활동은 적어도 분명히 논리적으로 다음 단계이다.

Clearly, neutrality is a burdened term. Some analysts believe that it should be abandoned altogether. However, despite its limitations, I see some important advantages in retaining neutrality as both a concept and a term. Especially in the context of its formal definition as a kind of "equidistance, " neutrality conveys the idea that the analyst should occupy a certain position and that the position should be a balanced one, that it should be between something and something else. 분명히중립성은 부담스러운 용어입니다일부 분석가들은 이것이 모두 포기되어야한다고 생각한다그러나 한계에도 불구하고 중립성을 개념과 용어로 유지하는  중요한 이점을 발견합니다특히 일종의 "등거리 (equidistance)"라는 형식 정의의 맥락에서 중립성은 분석가가 특정 위치를 차지해야하며 위치는 균형 잡힌 것이어야하며무엇인가와 다른  사이에 있어야한다는 생각을 전한다. This is a particularly important prescription for the analyst, who is continuously buffeted by a variety of forces, pushed and pulled into responding in one way or another. The temptation to ally oneself with one or another force in the

- 92 -

patients personality, to favor one of his tendencies at the expense of others, is always present. In the face of this, neutrality is a necessary, if incomplete, way of expressing an optimal analytic stance. The connotations of indifference are unfortunate, but this is not sufficient reason to discard it. Further, the term is in use and I have not been able to come up with an apt replacement. 이것은 분석가에게 특히 중요한 처방이며다양한 분석가에 의해 지속적으로 뷔페를 받고어떤 방식으로든 반응하고 끌어 당기는 분석가이다하나 또는 다른 힘으로 자신을 동맹국에 유혹하는 유혹

- 92 -

환자의 성격은 다른 사람들을 희생시키면서 자신의 성향  하나를 선호하는 것이 항상 존재합니다이러한면에서 중립성은 불완전하지마 최적의 분석 태도를 표현하는  필수적입니다무관심의 의미는 불행한 일이지만 이를 버릴 충분한 이유는 아닙니다또한  용어는 사용 중이며 적절한 대체물을 찾지 못했습니다.

If we are going to retain the term, however, we must be careful what we mean by it. Neutrality itself is far from a neutral word: any definition of it inevitably changes with alterations in the underlying theory. When Freud first introduced the term, he was talking about the need for the analyst to resist countertransferential pressures. He was not talking about equidistance from psychological structures, as Anna Freud was later in her definition, nor could he have constructed the concept in those terms. At the time of the technical papers, Freud was working with the topographic model; the mind was divided into the systems UCS., PCS., and CS. 그러나 우리가이 용어를 지키려면 우리가 의미하는 바를주의해야합니다중립성  자체는 중립적인 단어와 거리가 멀다그것의 정의는 필연적으로 기본 이론의 변경에 따라 변한다. Freud 처음 용어를 소개했을 그는 분석가가 역전이에 저항  필요성에 대해 이야기하고 있었다그는 Anna Freud 나중에 그녀의 정의에 따라 심리적 구조에서 등거리에 대해 이야기하는 것이 아니며 용어로 개념을 구성  수도 없었습니다기술 논문의 시점에서 Freud 지형 모델을 연구하고 있었다마음은 UCS., PCS., CS 체계들로 나뉘었다. The analyst in this model was explicitly allied with the UCS.: the very goal of analysis was to make the unconscious conscious. Any notion of equidistance awaited a crucial theoretical change: the tripartite structural model with its inherent idea that there are unconscious elements in all psychic structures.  모델의 분석가는 UCS 분명히 동맹을 맺었습니다분석의 목표는 의식을 의식하는 것이 었다등거리에 대한 개념은 결정적인 이론적 변화 모든 정신 구조에 무의식적인 요소가 있다는 고유의 생각을 가진 삼자 구조 모델을 기다리고 있었다.

In fact, Anna Freuds formulation is not simply a derivative of fair-mindedness. The classic definition appears in the context of her argument for the legitimacy of studying and analyzing the ego: it is not only technical prescription, but also theoretical polemic. As Lichtenberg (1983) notes, this argument was directed against the large number of analysts who refused to abandon the older system, in which ego functioning was considered the sort of superficial study that could be of interest only to academic psychologists.

사실, Anna Freud 공식은 단순한 공정성의 파생이 아니다고전적인 정의는 ego 연구하고 분석하는 정당성에 대한 그녀의 논쟁의 맥락에서 나타난다기술적인 처방  뿐만 아니라 이론적 논증이기도하다. Lichtenberg (1983) 지적한 바와 같이, 주장은 자아 기능이 학문적 심리학자들에게만 관심이   있는 일종의 피상적 연구로 간주되었던 구형 시스템을 포기하기를 거부  많은 분석가들을 대상으로  것이다.

 

Just how tied neutrality is to an underlying theoretical system becomes clear in light of another consideration. When Anna Freud defined neutrality, she was operating out of a model that viewed the Oedipus complex as the core issue both in development and in treatment. Working with the Oedipus complex as classical analysts did, and do, makes a number of assumptions about the patient, of which two are especially relevant here. 중립성이 근본적인 이론 체계와 어떻게 연결되어 있는지는  다른 고려에 비추어 명확해진다. Anna Freud 중립성을 정의했을 그녀는 발달과 치료 모두에서 Oedipus complex 핵심 쟁점으로 생각한 모델에서 벗어났습니다고전 분석가로서 오이디푸스 complex 함께 작업하면서 환자에 대한 여러 가지 가정이 생겼으며    가지가 특히 관련이 있습니다. First, it is assumed that the patient has achieved a set of structured goals (that is, instinctual aims) which have consistency and coherence over time and across a variety of different situations. Secondly, it is assumed

- 93 -

 

that the patient is an independent agent capable of active pursuit of these goals, although this may be interfered with on the basis of internal conflict. The "neutrality" of the analyst is an equidistance from all the forces operating within this sort of person. 첫째환자가 시간 경과에 따라 그리고 다양한 상황에서 일관성과 일치를 갖는 일련의 구조화된 목표 (본능적인 목표) 달성했다고 가정했다둘째환자가 내부 갈등을 기반으로 간섭을 받을 수는 있지만환자가 이러한 목표를 적극적으로 추구   있는 독립적인 에이전트라고 가정했다분석가의 "중립성" 이런 종류의 사람 안에서 운영되는 모든 세력으로부터 등거리이다.

 

However, as many analysts have come to appreciate the importance of developmental residues from the preoedipal years, the very vision of the patient as an autonomous, active agent has become a departure from neutrality. More accurately, I should say that the assumption of autonomy and activity is a departure from neutrality for those who accept the theoretical emendations of recent developmental theory. It is a departure because it involves an implicit rejection of the earliest developmental needs, seeing these as secondary to defensive retreats from the oedipal situation. On the other hand, for those who maintain an unmodified classical perspective, the serious consideration which is often given to preoedipal development may consititute non-neutrality, for example by being too accepting of the patients passivity or of his regressive defenses.

 

These considerations make it clear that a theoretical model based on radically different psychological and epistemological assumptions requires a redefinition of neutrality from that currently in use. The relational/structure model rests on such alternative assumptions. However, there has been no attempt to formulate the required redefinition. I now propose to do so, after reviewing the fundamental theoretical premises on which such a definition would be based.

As I mentioned earlier, the theories comprising the relational model are field theories. 이러한 고려는 근본적으로 다른 심리적인식론적 가정에 기초한 이론적 모델은 현재 사용되고 있는 것으로부터 중립의 재정의를 필요로 한다는 것을 분명히 한다관계형/구조 모델은 그러한 대체 가정에 의존한다그러나거기에는 요구된 재정의를 공식화 하려는 시도는 없었다나는 이제 그러한 정의가 근거가  기본적인 이론적 전제를 검토  후에 그렇게 제안한다앞서 언급했듯이관계형 모델을 구성하는 이론은 현장 이론이다. Based not on Cartesian rationalism but on a philosophy of science informed by Heisenbergs uncertainty principle and Einsteins relativity theory, the relational model postulates an analyst who is, in

Sullivans (1954) phrase, a "participant observer" or, in Fairbairns, an "interventionist" (1958). These concepts are not themselves technical prescriptions (i.e., suggestions that one ought to participate or to intervene), they are statements of fact from a particular philosophical perspective (Greenberg, 1981).

Cartesian 합리주의가 아니라 Sullivan (1954) 문구에 있어, "참여자 관찰자또는 Fairbairn "개입 주의자"(1958) Heisenberg 불확정성 원리와 Einstein 상대성 이론관계형 모델의 분석가에 의해 정보화된 과학 철학에 근거한다. 이러한 개념 자체는 기술적 처방이 아니며 (참여 또는 개입해야 한다는 제안), 특별한 철학적 관점에서의 사실적 진술이다(Greenberg, 1981).

From the psychodynamic point of view, every relational model theory postulates some idea of an internal object world, or a representational world. This is a stable, structured set of images consisting of transformations of relationships with other people (Sandler and Rosenblait, 1962). 심리 역동적 관점에서모든 관계 모델 이론은 내부 대상 세계 또는 표상  세계에 대한 어떤 생각을 가정한다이것은 다른 사람들과의 관계 변화 (Sandler and Rosenblait, 1962) 구성된 이미지의 안정된 구조화된 집합이다. Sullivans

- 94 -

"personifications" and "illusory others" and Fairbairns "internal objects" are the constituents of the representational world in their particular versions of the relational model. The representational world of the relational/structure model theorists is not simply a collection of images, howeverit has both motivational and structural properties. Put very briefly, the represented experiences constitute both a guide to what is desirable, expectable, or anxiety-ridden in human relationships, and also a template for judging contemporary experience with others.

Sullivan "인격화" "환상적인 다른 " Fairbairn "내적 대상" 관계형 모델의 특정 버전에서 표상 세계의 구성 요소이다관계적/구조 모델 이론가의 표현 세계는 단순한 이미지 모음이 아니라동기 부여와 구조적 특성을 모두 가지고 있다간단히 말하면표현된 경험은 인간 관계에서 바라는 기대할  있는 또는 불안한 것에 대한 안내와 동시에 다른 사람들과의 동시대의 경험을 판단하기 위한 틀을 구성한다. Combining these two relational model premises, we arrive at the following formulation: the analyst inevitably participates somewhere within a historical continuum of the patients relationships with others. That is, he "fits" somewhere into the patients representational world, either assimilated into an old relational pattern or experienced as new, and different from what the patient has experienced before. To reiterate: that he participates is not a choice; technique is a matter of specifying how he should participate.   관계 모델 전제를 결합하면 다음과 같은 공식에 도달하게 됩니다분석가는 필연적으로 환자의 다른 사람들과의 관계에서의 역사적인 연속체의 어딘가에 참여합니다그는 이전 관계 패턴으로 동화되거나 새로운 것으로 경험되거나이전에 환자가 경험했던 것과는 다른 환자의 표상 세계의 어딘가에 "적합하다는 것이다다시 말하면 그가 참여하는 것은 선택이 아니다기술은 그가 어떻게 참여해야 하는지를 지정하는 문제이다. With respect to the neutrality concept, a relational model revision of Anna Freuds concept of equidistance would "place" the analyst somewhere within the historical continuum of the patients relationships. I will take this up shortly, but first must take a brief detour through another aspect of the psychoanalytic situation. 중립성 개념과 관련하여 Anna Freud 등거리 개념에 대한 관계 모델 개정은 분석가를 환자 관계의 역사적 연속체의 어딘가에 "배치 것이다나는 이것을  취할 것이지만,그러나 먼저 정신 분석적 상황의  다른 측면을 통해 짧은 우회로를 취해야 한다.

A theme which is being increasingly stressed in recent discussions of the psychoanalytic process is the need to create what Schafer (1983) has aptly termed an "atmosphere of safety." (See also the "atmosphere of tolerance" of Sandler and Sandler [1983] and the "conditions of safety" of Weiss [1982].) 최근의 정신 분석적 과정에 대한 논의에서 점차 강조되고 있는주제는 Schafer(1983) 적절하게 "안전한 분위기"이라고 부른 것을 만들 필요가 있다는 것이다. (Sandler Sandler[1983] "관용의 분위기" Weiss [1982] "안전의 조건참조) Only under conditions of perceived security can the patient risk elaborating the thoughts, fantasies, and feelings which need to be brought to light and examined if analysis is to proceed beneficially (see Myerson, 1981a), (1981b). In the absence of this sense of safety, as Schafer puts it, "the analysand could not take on what he or she ventures to confront during the analysis, and instead would continue simply to feel injured, betrayed, threatened, seduced, or otherwise interfered with or traumatized" (1983p. 32). In agreement with Schafer, I see an intimate connection between the analysts neutrality and the patients experience of safety. 지각된 안전 상태에서만 환자가 분석을 유리하게 진행한다면 사고와 환상감정을 밝히고 조사해야  위험이 있다(Myerson, 1981a 참조, 1981b).

이러한 안전감이 결여되어 있는 것에서, Schafer 언급하기를피분석자는 분석동안 그나 그녀가 직면할 모험을 가지고   없었고(감당할  없으며그리고 대신 상처배신협박유혹 또는 다른 방식으로 간섭 받거나 트라우마를 입었다"(1983p. 32). Schafer와의 합의에서 나는 분석가의 중립성과 환자의 안전 경험 사이에 밀접한 관련이 있음을 알았다.

The stress on the need for safety depends on an important theoretical

- 95 -

 

The stress on the need for safety depends on an important theoretical

assumption that, although prefigured in Freuds late writings and in some of Hartmanns work, was developed most fully in the work of relational model theorists. This is the assumption that repression always has an interpersonal component; it takes place in a context that determines when a feeling or impulse is dangerous (see Myerson, 1977). Both Schafers and Myersons work stress the importance of creating an atmosphere in which the conditions under which repression once became necessary are not recreated. In terms of the relational model premises which I have spelled out, the atmosphere of safety would depend on the analysts ability to create conditions in which the patient perceives him as a new object. Strachey (1934) conceptualized this as the need to breach the vicious circle of projection/introjection through which archaic bad object relationships keep being re-created. Strachey(1934) 이것을 오래된 나쁜 대상 관계가  창조되는 것을 유지하는 것을 통해 투사/내사의 악순환을 벗어날 필요성으로 이것을 개념화했다. I think Schafer implicitly recognizes this in his statement that without the atmosphere of safety the patient would continue to feel injured, betrayed and so on. Sullivan 가정은 비록 Freud 후기 저작들과 다수의 Hartmann 저작에서 미리 형상화되었지만관계형 모델 이론가들의 연구에서 가장 완벽하게 개발되었다는 것이다이것은 억압이 항상 대인 관계적 요소를 가지고 있다는 가정이다이것은 감정이나 충동이 언제 위험한지를 결정하는 맥락에서 일어난다(Myerson, 1977 참조). Schafer Myerson 연구는 억압이 필요하게  조건을 재현하지 않는 분위기 조성의 중요성을 강조한다내가 <s>철자를</s><s> </s><s>말한</s> 형성한 관계형 모델 전제의 측면에서안전의 분위기는 환자가 그를 새로운 대상으로 인식하는데 있어 조건을 만드는 분석가의 능력에 달려있다. Strachey(1934) 이것을 오래된 나쁜 대상 관계가  생성되는 것을 유지하는 것을 통해 투사/내사의 악순환을 벗어날 필요성으로 개념화했다나는 Schafer 그의 진술에서 이것을 암시적으로 안전의 분위기가 없으면 환자는 계속 상처를 입고 배신감을 느낄 것이라고 생각한다.

Ironically, however, the analytic situation cannot be too safe. I mean, of course, that there has to be room for transference, with all the dangers that the eruption of threatening feelings within the context of an archaic relationship entails. Many patientsand, I hasten to add, some analysts tooeagerly and defensively embrace the emergence of the analyst as a "new" object. 그러나 아이러니하게도 분석적인 상황은 그렇게 안전   없다물론오래된 관계 속에서 위협적인 감정의 분출이 수반되는 모든 위험을 감안하여 전이의 공간이 있어야 한다는 것을 의미한다많은 환자들이 – 그리고내가 서둘러 추가하기를일부 환자들은 –그리고 나와 일부 분석가들 역시 추가하기를 새로운” 대상으로의 분석가의 출현을 eagerly간절히(열성적으로그리고 방어적으로 받아들인다.

They embrace him eagerly because there is genuine relief from a life of relationships gone away; they embrace him defensively because the "good" therapeutic relationship temporarily de-fuses conflict. But the analyst who is too much a new object has fallen into a trap: it is in working through the disruptions of safety (and, thus, in its re-establishment) that the most important progress occurs. 그들은 분석가를 거기에 관계 생활에 대한 진정한 구제가 있기 때문에 간절히 받아들인다그들은 "좋은치료적 관계가 일시적으로 갈등을 해소하기 때문에 그를 적극적으로(방어적으로받아 들인다그러나 새로운 목표가 너무 많은 분석가는 함정에 빠지게 된다가장 중요한 진보가 발생하는 것은 안전상의 혼란 (다시 말하면  설립) 통해 작동된다.

I am suggesting here that there is a need to strike a kind of balance between danger and safety, which can be roughly translated as striking a balance between being seen by the patient as an old or a new object. This recalls the relational model concept of a historical continuum within the representational world. It is also reminiscent of Anna Freuds idea of neutrality as equidistance, although when addressing operations within the representational world I prefer a term like "optimal tension" to equidistance because of its dynamic connotations.

This brings me to the new definition of analytic neutrality.

나는 여기에 위험과 안전 사이의 균형을 취할 필요가 있음을 제안하고 있다환자가 오래되거나 새로운 물체로 보게되는 것의 균형이것은 표상 세계에서 역사적인 연속체의 관계형 모델 개념을 회상한다이것은 또한 등거리로서 Anna Freud 중립성의 아이디어를 연상하게 하며비록 표상 세계에서 작동하는 것을 언급할  나는 그것의 역동적 함축 때문에 등거리보다 최적의 긴장 같은 용어를 선호한다이것은 분석적 중립성의 새로운 정의로 나를 인도한다.

In my contribution to a panel discussion on this issue, I have suggested

- 96 -

that neutrality is best understood not as a behavior or series of behaviors, but as the goal of all the analysts behaviors (Greenberg, 1986). I said that neutrality is a work like "democracy, " which refers to a kind of government rather than to the particular laws that implement it. With this in mind, we are in a position to define neutrality from the perspective of the relational model: Neutrality embodies the goal of establishing an optimal tension between the patients tendency to see the analyst as an old object and his capacity to experience him as a new one.  문제에 관한 패널 토론에 대한 나의 공헌으로나는 중립성이 행동이나 일련의 행동이 아니라 모든 분석가의 행동 목표로 가장  이해된다는 것을 제안했었다(Greenberg, 1986). 나는 중립성이 "민주주의" 같은 일이라고 말했었다이것은 민주주의를 구현하는 특정 법률보다는 일종의 정부를 가리킨다이를 염두에 두고우리는 관계형 모델의 관점에서 중립성을 정의  수있는 입장에  있습니다중립성은 분석가를 오래된대상으로 보는 환자의 경향과 분석가() 새로운 one사람으로 경험할  있는 능력 사이의 최적 긴장을 구현한다는 목표를 구체화한다.


 
 
 
 
이전글   다음글이 없습니다.
다음글   이전글이 없습니다.