Paranoid Construction and Nonpathological Human Cognition 偏执的建构与非病态人类认知 As I have suggested,however,in discussing normal states related to paranoia,the paranoid construction enjoys a much wider occurrence in the organization of human thought processes. Every human being has to deal with the basic cognitive problem of integrating his perceptual experience into meaningful patterns. The integration of the experience of objects into the experience of whole objects is often a difficulty for the fragmented schizophrenic ego, but it is not the problem we are dealing with here, nor is it typically the paranoid problem. We are dealing rather with the overall integration of objects and events into a pattern which not only relates them in a meaningful way and makes sense out of their occurrence, but also situates the current of events in a meaningful way in relation to the subject who experiences them. Every human being gains some perception of his world and how it relates to him. He fits the significant figures in his environment to a pattern which expresses the quality and nature of his relationship to them. He fits himself into a pattern which embraces the larger perspectives of social structures and groups. He must come to see himself in these multiple and overlapping contexts, and fit himself into them in ways which are meaningful and, in the normal course of things, at the same time give meaning to his life and activity. 然而，正如我所建议的，在讨论与偏执有关的正常状态时，偏执建构在人类思维过程的组织中普遍存在。每个人都必须处理将自己的感知经验整合成有意义模式的基本认知问题。对碎片化的精神分裂症自我来说，将客体的体验整合到整体的体验中往往是一个难题，但这不是我们在这里要解决的问题，也不是典型的偏执问题。我们所处理的是对象和事件的整体整合，使之成为一种模式，这种模式不仅以一种有意义的方式将它们联系起来，使它们的发生变得有意义，而且以一种有意义的方式将事件流与经历它们的主体联系起来。每个人都对自己的世界和它与自己的关系有一定的认识。他将环境中的重要人物与表达他与他们之间关系的质量和性质的模式相匹配。他将自己融入了一种模式，这种模式包含了社会结构和群体的更大视角。他必须在这些多重和重叠的环境中看到自己，并以有意义的方式融入其中，在正常的过程中，同时赋予他的生活和活动意义。 The problem is that the data that reality provides are never so complete, so unambiguous, or so definite that such patterns of meaning are forced upon the human mind. The evidences are often unavailable, thus leaving a certain discontinuity in experience. The evidences that are available are often of varying degrees of clarity and certainty, and involve elements that can only be inferred or conjectured — the thoughts and intentions of other people for example. Man is forced to integrate and respond to his world in terms of something that he creates within himself which completes the picture, in a sense, and gives him a framework for interpreting what he experiences and a presumptive basis for decision and action. Such patterns of meaning are often provided by belief systems and ideologies, insofar as the individual is able to accept and affiliate himself to such prefabricated interpretations. This requires that the individual must share his belief system with others and must accept the shared perspective as properly his own. To this extent, belief systems diverge from the paranoid construction, since the criterion of validity becomes more social consensus rather than subjective need. The dichotomy obviously is not absolute, since belief systems are accepted in the degree that they answer to subjective needs, but the paranoid construction characteristically does not involve social consensus. 问题是，现实所提供的数据从来没有如此完整、如此不含糊或如此明确，以至于这些意义模式被强加在人类的头脑中。证据往往是不可用的，因此在经验上留下了一定的不连续。现有的证据往往具有不同程度的明确性和确定性，并且包含只能推断或推测的元素——例如，其他人的思想和意图。人类被迫整合和回应他的世界，通过他在自己内心创造的某种东西来完成这幅图景，在某种意义上，这给了他一个框架来解释他所经历的，以及一个决策和行动的假定基础。只要个人能够接受这种预制的解释，这种意义模式往往是由信仰系统和意识形态提供的。这要求个人必须与他人分享他的信仰体系，并且必须接受分享的方面为自己的观点。从这个意义上说，信仰体系与偏执的建构是相背离的，因为有效性的标准更多的是社会共识，而不是主观需要。这种二分法显然不是绝对的，因为信仰系统在满足主观需要的程度上是可以被接受的，但是偏执型建构的特点是不涉及社会共识。 I would like to emphasize that the cognitive process that is involved in the paranoid construction is a basic characteristic of human cognition. Normally the construction that human beings make is flexible and open to correction in terms of new experience and in terms of the continual process of consensual validation with other persons and the community. But the paranoid construction resists this corrective. The point is that the same cognitive process, common in human thinking, can be diverted in the paranoid direction, insofar as subjective needs become the determining element rather than objective evidence or consensual agreement. The analogous problem arises wherever thought processes are involved in the interpretation or organization of data. Even in scientific thinking, the theory is a construction which organizes and interprets a certain set of data so that they are explainable in terms of a meaningful and coherent understanding. 我想强调的是，偏执建构所涉及的认知过程是人类认知的一个基本特征。通常情况下，人类所进行的建构是灵活的，并且是开放的，可以根据新的经验进行修正，也可以根据与他人和社区不断进行的共识验证过程进行修正。但偏执建构抗拒这种纠正。关键是，同样的认知过程，在人类思维中很常见，也可以转向偏执的方向，只要主观需求而不是客观证据或共识成为决定因素。在解释或组织数据时，只要涉及到思维过程，就会出现类似的问题。即使在科学思维中，理论也是一种建构，它组织和解释一组特定的数据，以便用有意义和连贯的理解来解释这些数据。 The scientific mind is subject to correctives which control and lend validity to the theory. Validation must take place by finding confirming evidence and by reconciling the theory with apparently divergent evidence. The theory is also bolstered by the consensus of the scientific community and the continued willingness of knowledgeable scientists to accept the theory as a basis for understanding and activity. The history of science is not without examples in which the scientific mind deviated from its own canons of validation and confirmation. When a theory becomes rigid, when it is presumed rather than tested against new evidence, when a scientist becomes more concerned with defending theory than evaluating it, then we are dealing not with authentic science, but with something more akin to the paranoid construction. One of the charges made against analysts at one point in the history of psychoanalysis is that they were more interested in preserving Freud's theories than they were in developing or changing them in the face of new evidence. Whether the charge was justified or not, it is conceivable that subjective needs and concerns can invade a more scientific attitude, so that they become the criterion of validity and acceptance in the place of more objective norms. 科学的思维是受纠正的，这些纠正控制并使理论有效。验证必须通过找到支持性证据，并将理论与明显有分歧的证据进行协调来进行。科学界的共识和知识渊博的科学家继续愿意接受这一理论作为理解和活动的基础，也支持了这一理论。在科学史上，并非没有这样的例子:科学思维偏离了它自己验证和确认的准则。当一个理论变得僵化时，当它被假定而不是被新的证据检验时，当一个科学家变得更关心捍卫理论而不是评估理论时，那么我们就不是在与真正的科学打交道，而是在与某种更类似于偏执建构的东西打交道。在精神分析史上，有一项针对分析学家的指控是，他们更感兴趣的是保存弗洛伊德的理论，而不是在面对新证据时发展或改变它们。无论这种指控是否合理，可以想象，主观的需要和关切可以侵入一种更科学的态度，从而取代更客观的规范，成为有效性和接受性的标准。 In this regard it is also clear that an analogous pattern can develop in groups. The history of religion is rich with examples of belief systems which were maintained with intense and even violent force by those who adhered to them. These events suggest an unwillingness to question, explore, reformulate, rethink, and reevaluate the belief system. There was a need to cling to and defend the belief system born out of inner subjective needs, adherence to which provided for each individual and for the group a source of security and support. Similar mechanisms, as we have observed, can be identified in many forms of group adherence and intergroup conflict. Schools of scientific thought fall into the same difficulties. The prejudicial attitudes that develop between various groups, whether religious, racial, or socioeconomic, manifest similar processes by which objective processes of interpretation and validation are invaded by subjective needs, and those needs become the controlling element. 在这方面，同样明显的是，类似的模式可以在群体中形成。宗教的历史上有很多这样的例子，信仰系统被那些坚持它们的人以强烈甚至暴力的力量维持着。这些事件表明人们不愿意去质疑、探索、重新构建、反思和评估信仰体系。有必要坚持和捍卫源自内在主观需要的信仰体系，这种信仰体系为每个个人和群体提供了安全与支持的源泉。正如我们所观察到的，类似的机制可以在许多形式的群体依附性和群体间冲突中找到。科学思想流派也陷入了同样的困境。不同群体之间形成的偏见态度，无论是宗教的、种族的还是社会经济的，都表现出类似的过程，通过这种过程，解释和确认的客观过程受到主观需求的侵犯，而这些需求成为控制性因素。 I would like to specify the relation between the paranoid construction and projection. Projection typically takes place at those points in the pattern which lack clarity or at which the evidence is ambiguous. Projection does not deal with what is actual and apparent. It deals with what is hidden and unavailable as direct evidence — the thoughts, feelings, intentions, and motives of others, for example. Projection, therefore, enters in to fill in the gaps in the information input. It is precisely such filling-in and making-whole to which the constructive aspect of cognition pertains. In the paranoid construction, the filling-in derives from inner subjective needs and is accomplished specifically by projection. What is projected, correspondingly, derives from the inner world of the subject and is based on introjective elements. Thus the paranoid construction, insofar as it diverges from normal patterns of cognitive construction which rest on real evidence and consensual agreement, begins to function in terms of mechanisms of projection and introjection. The operation of projective and introjective mechanisms in belief systems and prejudices has already been discussed. 我想具体说明偏执建构和投射之间的关系。投射通常发生在模式中缺乏明确性或证据不明确的那些点上。投射不处理实际和明显的东西。它处理作为直接证据的隐藏和不可用的东西——例如，他人的思想、情感、意图和动机。因此，投影进来填补信息输入中的空白。认识的建构性的方面，正是这样的“填空”和“补全”。在偏执的建构中，填空源于内在的主观需要，具体是通过投射来完成的。与之相对应的是，投射出来的东西来自于主体的内心世界，并以内摄元素为基础。因此，偏执的建构，只要偏离了依赖于真实证据和共同认可的正常认知建构模式，就开始在投射和内摄机制方面发挥作用。投射和内摄机制在信仰系统和偏见中的作用已经讨论过了。