Compliance and Rebellion 服从与反叛 If it is true that object ties can be consolidated by the reciprocal reinforcement of introjects, as I have suggested above, it is also true that the recourse to projection also serves to preserve the relationship of the subject to the persecuting object as such. From one point of view, the relationship to the persecuting object is the opposite face of the reciprocal reinforcement of the introject, as well as the dynamic substratum for the formation and preservation of the false self-system. In our series of patients it seems quite clear that the outcome, in behavioral terms, of this dual aspect of the projective mechanism—confirming the introject and preserving the relationship to the object—is that the patients are compelled to adopt a position of compliance or rebellion, or that they find themselves alternating between the two, often in a somewhat unpredictable and chaotic fashion. Thus, for Bob B., the pattern of compliance became a characteristic of his false self-system, but at the critical point he turned to a violent rebellion in the form of his psychotic decompensation. Similarly Ann A. preserved a smoldering facade of compliance in the face of her mother's sadistic attacks, but periodically would break forth in an outburst of violent and panicked paranoid rebellion. 如果说客体联系确实可以像我上面所提出的那样，通过内摄物的相互强化而得到巩固的话，那么求助于投射也确实是为了维护主体与迫害性客体的这种关系。从某种角度看，与迫害性客体的关系是内摄物相互强化的反面，也是虚假自体系统形成和保存的动力学基础。在我们的一系列病人中，似乎很清楚，从行为学的角度来看，投射机制的这种双重方面——确认内摄物和维护与客体的关系——的结果是，病人被迫采取顺从或反叛的立场，或者他们发现自己在这两者之间交替，往往是以一种有点不可预测和混乱的方式。因此，对于鲍勃来说，顺从的模式成了他的虚假自体系统的一个特征，但在关键点上，他转而以其精神失代偿的形式进行暴力反抗。同样，安娜在面对母亲的虐待性攻击时，也保持着一副顺从面孔，但周期性地会爆发出暴力的、惊慌失措的偏执叛逆。 In the cases in which an acute psychotic decompensation seems to occur, most often this can be seen in terms of a violent rebellion against the pattern of enforced compliance. Whatever the other external terms of the compliance may be—whether of specific or general expectations of reward or punishment—there also seems to be important internal motivational aspects. The compliance becomes the price of the preservation of the relationship to the persecuting object, on the one hand, as well as the duty that the patient pays for preserving the inner relationship to the introjected object on the other hand. 在似乎发生急性精神失代偿的情况下，最常见的是对强迫服从模式的暴力反抗。不管服从的其他外部条件是什么——不管是具体的还是一般的奖赏或惩罚的期望——似乎也有重要的内部动机方面。服从一方面成为保存与迫害性客体关系的代价，另一方面也成为患者为保存与内摄客体的内在关系而付出的责任。 In any case the issues of compliance and rebellion are pervasive elements in the inner life and experience of these patients, undoubtedly correlative to the threatened and fragile status of their sense of inner autonomy. Often enough the external demands and the need to comply are functioning at a relatively unconscious level. One of the important parameters of treatment of such patients is the increasing bringing to awareness of the issues of compliance and/or rebellion in their relationship not only with significant objects, but in the broader contexts of their experience. As Freud once commented, "You cannot exaggerate the intensity of people's inner lack of resolution and craving for authority"(1910, p. 146). 在任何情况下，服从和反叛的问题都是这些病人内心生活和经历中普遍存在的元素，无疑与他们内心自主感的威胁和脆弱状态相关。很多时候，外在的要求和服从的需要是在相对无意识的层面上发挥作用的。治疗这类患者的重要参数之一，是在他们不仅与重要客体的关系中，而且在他们的经验的更广泛的背景下，越来越多地使人们认识到服从和/或反叛的问题。正如弗洛伊德曾经评论的那样，"你不能夸大人们内心缺乏决断力和对权威的渴望的强度"(1910，p.146)。 It becomes quickly apparent that the issue of compliance is a delicate and important one for the analytic situation. There seems little doubt that some degree of compliance is essential to it. The question that remains open, however, is whether analysts tend to mistake compliance for therapeutic alliance. Schafer draws a distinction at this point between the technical preferences of the analyst and personal preferences. He writes, 很快就会发现，对于分析情境来说，服从问题是一个微妙而重要的问题。似乎没有什么疑问，某种程度的服从对其至关重要。然而，尚待解决的问题是，分析者是否倾向于将服从误认为是治疗性联盟。Schafer在这一点上对分析者的技术偏好和个体偏好进行了区分。他写道： The analyst attempts to convey only technical preferences to his patient, and not personal ones. His technical preferences are for free association, frankness, introspection, verbalization, keeping appointments, maintaining the recumbent position, and paying bills. It is generally recognized, however, that the analyst's personal preferences are represented in his analytic behavior: they are implied in his style of work, and in the seepage of his specific counter-transference reactions(1968a, pp. 35-36). 分析师试图只向他的病人传达技术上的偏好，而不是个体的偏好。他的技术偏好是自由联想、坦率、内省、口头表达、保持预约、保持躺姿和支付账单。然而，人们普遍认识到，分析师的个体偏好在他的分析行为中得到了体现：它们隐含在他的工作风格中，也隐含在他特定的反移情反应的渗入中(1968a，第35-36页)。 Consciously or unconsciously the patient responds to these dictates of the analytic situation, whether explicit or implicit. The patient's compliance may take the form of positive transference, productivity, production of useful free associations, and a whole host of other "good patient" behaviors. The patient's rebellion may take the place of negative transference, various forms of resistance and other patterns of obstructive and negative behavior. It is often very difficult to judge analytically whether what one is seeing is a pattern of compliance or rebelliousness, which is associated with the operation of the paranoid process, or whether what one is seeing is either authentic collaboration or autonomous and healthily independent behavior. My only point at this juncture is that these issues are alive for the paranoid patient and must also be alive for his therapist. 患者自觉或不自觉地对这些分析情境的要求作出反应，无论是明确的还是隐含的。患者的服从可能采取正移情、生产率、产生有用的自由联想以及其他一系列 "好患者"行为的形式。患者的反叛可能采取负移情、各种形式的抵抗和其他阻碍性和消极的行为模式。往往很难分析判断自己所看到的是与偏执过程运行相关的服从或反叛模式，还是看到的是真实的合作或自主健康的独立行为。在这个关头，我唯一想说的是，这些问题对偏执患者来说是活的，对他的治疗师来说也必须是活的。