Loss of Power and Will 权力和意志的丧失 In the genesis of paranoia, these underlying psychotic issues are blended in varying degrees with the issues more specifically related to the development of autonomy. The impairments in a sense of autonomy, more than any other, relate to the development of a paranoid style. Schwartz (1964) has suggested that the adult capacity for free choice involves three elements—causality, power, and responsibility. The paranoid view involves a recognition of the fact that human beings can cause things to happen, but the paranoid lacks a sense of his own causal efficacy or power. The paranoid does not recognize in general that he has more power to influence his environment than he thinks he does. He has little sense of his effects on others. This is quite apparent clinically in paranoid patients who see themselves as victims without any sense of what they have done to elicit or provoke action against themselves. Schwartz points out that this style of adapting results from a pattern of parental interaction from which the child develops a view of himself as the passive target for other people's causal influence and as having no sense of power or responsibility for their activity. 在偏执的起源中，这些潜在的精神病问题在不同程度上与更具体地与自主性发展相关的问题混合在一起。自主性的损害，比其他任何损害都更与偏执风格的发展有关。Schwartz(1964)提出成年人自由选择的能力包括三个因素——因果关系、权力和责任。偏执观点涉及到对人类可以导致事情发生这一事实的认识，但偏执者缺乏自己因果效力或权力的意识。偏执者通常没有意识到，他对环境的影响比他认为的更大。他对自己对别人的影响没有什么感觉。这在偏执患者身上很明显，他们认为自己是受害者，却不知道自己做了什么来引发或激起针对自己的行动。Schwartz指出，这种适应方式源于父母之间的互动模式，在这种模式下，孩子将自己视为他人因果影响的被动目标，对他人的行为没有权力感或责任感。 Kovar(1966) has developed the same idea in terms of external influence—the central theme of the child's development is that the child's will is subverted by a parent who inculcates the belief that one person can unconditionally influence the actions of another. The future paranoid's development is characterized by avoidance of all situations in which the dictatorial parent or equivalent surrogate are not present to direct the patient's life and action. Such a controlling and invasive parent is a constant feature of the developmental contexts of paranoid patients. Frequently the pattern is related to early parent-child symbiotic relationships in which the child is fused with an omnipotent parent. The developmental alternatives are either submisive compliance or rebellious resistance. In the former case, an introjective resolution tends to predominate and the pattern of response tends to be more schizoid or depressed. Passive homosexuality may be a feature, butneed not be(Ehrenwald,1960). In the rebellious alternative, however, the resolution tends to be more paranoid. As we have observed frequently before, the latter alternative may serve as a defense against the former. 科瓦尔(1966)在外部影响方面也提出了同样的观点——儿童发展的中心主题是，孩子的意志被父母颠覆，父母向他灌输这种信念，即一个人可以无条件地影响另一个人的行为。将来将成为偏执者的人的发展特点是避免出现独裁父母或同等代理人不在场指导病人的生活和行动的所有情况。这种控制和侵入性的父母是偏执患者发展环境的一个恒定特征。这种模式通常与早期的亲子共生关系有关，在这种关系中，孩子与全能的父母融合在一起。发展的可选项不是顺从的服从就是叛逆的反抗。在前一种情况下，内摄的解决办法倾向于占主导地位，而反应模式倾向于更分裂或抑郁。被动同性恋可能是一个特征，但不一定是(埃伦沃尔德，1960)。然而，在叛逆的选择中，解决办法往往更加偏执。正如我们以前经常看到的，后一种选择可以作为对前一种选择的防御。 To add another comment on the Schreber case, we have discussed the deeper unresolved conflicts of dependency and destruction in his relationship to his mother. Those conflicts undermined the elements of basic trust in his development, and set the stage for the precarious resolution of issues of autonomy. We can also hypothesize that they left him with a deep inner sense of inferiority and inadequacy that was to take its toll in later years. But we would have little idea of the subsequent course of his growth in autonomy were it not for the efforts of Niederland(1951,1960,1959, 1963,1968) in collecting the material concerning Schreber's father' steaching and disciplinary methods. It is plain from the Memoirs that Schreber's attempts to deal with the underiying conflicts—and we would suggest that symbiotic conflicts with the mother were active at the deepest level—took the form of an identification with his father. The mysteriously absent third chapter, however, only hints at a connection between the activities of some of the members of his family and the matter of "soul-murder." What Schreber had in mind may well have been crucial for our concerns here. But in the light of what we have learned about his father, the whole problem of "soul-murder" begins to take on meaning. 为了对施雷伯一案再作评论，我们讨论了他与母亲关系中更深层次的未解决的依赖与破坏的冲突。这些冲突破坏了一个人对他的发展的基本信任，并为不稳定地解决自治问题奠定了基础。我们也可以假设，他们留给他的是一种深深的内在的自卑感和不足感，这种感觉在后来的岁月中产生了影响。但是，如果不是尼德兰(1951年、1960年、1959年、1963年、1968年)在收集有关施雷伯父亲的教育和训练方法的资料方面所作的努力，我们对他后来在自治方面的成长过程几乎一无所知。从回忆录中可以很明显地看出，施雷伯处理底层冲突的尝试——我们认为，与母亲的共生冲突在最深层是活跃的——是以与父亲认同的形式出现的。然而，神秘失踪的第三章只是暗示了他的一些家庭成员的活动和“灵魂谋杀”之间的联系。施雷伯的想法很可能对我们在这里的关切至关重要。但根据我们对他父亲的了解，整个“灵魂谋杀”的问题开始有了意义。 The father's rigid and sadistically punitive educational and training practices, which we know were practiced on the little Schreber, were calculated to break the child's will and bring him into complete submission. The regimen was a mental and physical assault on the child's nascent autonomy which relentlessly crushed any least sign of self-assertation or willfulness. Niederland (1959) is undoubtedly correct when he describes this procedure as an attempt on the father's part to projectively control his own impulses—sadistic and murderous and probably homosexual. His own impulses were projected onto the child, who had then to be relentlessly punished for them. The impact of these efforts on the psychic development of the young Schreber was catastrophic. The injuries to his sense of worth and self-esteem were irreparable, and the residues of self-doubt, shame, and guilt that he carried into his adult life could only be managed by paranoid and psychotic alternatives. 我们知道，父亲在施雷伯身上所实行的严厉的、残酷的、惩罚性的教育和训练方法，是为了破坏孩子的意志，使他完全屈服。这种生活规则是对孩子新生的自主性的精神和身体上的攻击，无情地粉碎了任何自我肯定或任性的迹象。Niederland(1959)无疑是正确的，他把这个过程描述为父亲试图以投射的方式控制自己的冲动——虐待狂、谋杀，可能还有同性恋。他把自己的冲动投射到那孩子身上，而那孩子也因此受到了无情的惩罚。这些努力对年轻的施雷伯的心理发展的影响是灾难性的。他的价值感和自尊受到的伤害是无法弥补的，而他成年生活中遗留下来的自我怀疑、羞耻和内疚只能通过偏执和精神病的替代品来解决。