Projection and Generalization 投射和泛化 There are some important discriminations that need to be made in focusing on the projective mechanism. One important discrimination is that between projection and generalization. Novick and Hurry (1969) observe that after the stage of self-object differentiation, the child's view of the external world and the objects around him will be determined in large measure by what he knows of himself. Thus with the dawning awareness of his own wishes to devour the object, for example, the child naturally ascribes similar wishes to the object itself. They comment: "This process is not projection proper; the conscious awareness of his own wish continues to exist. We would term this process 'generalization.' The process of generalization remains the child's major mode of apprehending the unknown and persists to some extent throughout life. Examples are legion; the infantile sexual theories, for instance, provide clear illustrations"(p. 5). They go on to observe that the assumption that Freud saw projection as central in the process of superego formation is inaccurate, since Freud ascribed the severity of the superego not to projection of aggressive wishes onto the introjected object, but to other factors, including the natural assumption on the part of the child that he and the father had similar aggressive wishes toward each other. 在关注投射机制时，需要进行一些重要的区分。其中一个重要的区分是投射与泛化之间的区分。Novick和Hurry(1969)观察到，在自体客体分化阶段之后，儿童对外部世界和周围客体的看法在很大程度上将由他对自己的认识决定。因此，随着儿童对自己吞噬客体的愿望的逐渐认识，例如，儿童会自然地将类似的愿望赋予客体本身。他们评论说 "这个过程并不是正确的投射; 他对自己的愿望的意识继续存在。我们将这一过程称为'泛化'。泛化的过程仍然是儿童领会未知客体的主要模式，并在一定程度上贯穿于一生。例子不胜枚举；例如，婴儿性理论就提供了明确的例证"(第5页)。他们继续指出，认为弗洛伊德认为投射是超我形成过程中的核心的假设是不准确的，因为弗洛伊德把超我的严重性归结为不是把攻击性的愿望投射到内摄客体上，而是归结为其他因素，包括儿童自然地认为他和父亲对对方有类似的攻击性愿望。 It seems to me that the distinction between generalization and projection can be clearly drawn. Generalization is a learning phenomenon and is presumably based on the data provided by reality. Thus one can infer on the basis of external clues that someone else has feelings similar to what one experiences within oneself. But one would not expect that the generalization of itself would be extended in the face of contradictory or nonsupportive evidence. 在我看来，可以明确区分泛化和投射。泛化是一种学习现象，大概是基于现实提供的数据。因此，人们可以根据外在的线索推断出别人的感受与自己内心的体验相似。但人们不会想到，在面对相互矛盾或不支持的证据时，泛化自然而然地会得到延伸。 The point at issue, it seems to me, in the mechanism of projection, is that the child's perception of destructive and hostile aggression in the parent is maintained not only without proportional supportive evidence, but in the face even of contradictory evidence. Or to put it in other terms, that the child's perception of the parent is maintained without adequately supporting evidence—that is, that the parent may indeed have hostile impulses toward the child, but that the child's perception of this magnifies the destructive element out of proportion. This cannot be simply generalization, as a relatively normal learning phenomenon relatively removed from conflictual and defensive involvement, but would seem more appropriately to be ascribable to the operation of projective mechanisms. This seems to me to be the point of Freud's discussion of the origins of superego aggression in Civilization and Its Discontents. 在我看来，在投射机制中，问题的关键在于，孩子对父母的破坏性和敌意的攻击性的认知不仅在没有相应的支持性证据的情况下得以维持，而且甚至在面对矛盾的证据时也得以维持。或者换一种说法，就是孩子对父母的认知是在没有充分支持性证据的情况下维持的——也就是说，父母可能确实对孩子有敌意冲动，但孩子对此的认知却将破坏性因素放大到不成比例的程度。这不能简单地视为泛化，作为一种相对正常的学习现象，相对脱离了冲突性和防御性的参与，而归结为投射机制的运作似乎更为恰当。在我看来，这正是弗洛伊德在《文明及其不满》中讨论超我攻击性起源的重点。 Moreover it cannot be simply said that projection serves as a defense against an object-directed drive derivative, but rather that projection serves as a defense against self-directed destructive impulses. The inner force, which overrides the experience of reality and interferes with the processes of learning and generalization, involves a more complex process by which the subject relates to the object in question. In the child's relationship to the father, for example, there is apparently an originating introjection which is based on and reflects the more or less moderated and realistic degrees of ambivalence that are inherent in the gratifying and prohibiting aspects of the real relationship. Once the introject is drawn within the inner world, however, it becomes susceptible to attribution of more intense and aggressive components which remain relatively unneutralized in the child's psychic economy. The reprojection of this aggressivized introject then colors the child's interaction with the real object and tends to magnify and distort the aggressive aspects of the parent-child relationship. 此外，不能简单地说，投射是对客体导向的驱力衍生物的防御，而应该说投射是对自体导向的破坏性冲动的防御。凌驾于现实经验之上，干扰学习和泛化过程的内在力量，涉及到主体与有关客体的关系的更复杂的过程。例如，在儿童与父亲的关系中，显然存在着一种起源性的内摄，这种内摄以现实关系中的满足和禁止方面的内在矛盾性为基础，并反映了这种矛盾性的或多或少的缓和和现实程度。然而，一旦内摄物被引向内心世界，它就容易被归结为更强烈的攻击性成分，而这些成分在儿童的心理经济中仍然相对没有被中和。这种攻击性的内摄物的再投射就会给儿童与真实客体的互动带来色彩，并倾向于放大和扭曲亲子关系的攻击性方面。 This interaction of projection and introjection would seem to underlie and build a foundation for the subsequent fear of the object—in the case of the male child, that of the father, most clearly, as an internal organization which underlies the subsequent castration threat and anxiety. Thus, to return to the example cited by Novick and Hurry (1969), the obsessive-compulsive child undoubtedly was highly conflicted about aggression, but his paranoid fear that his therapist was going to attack and kill him would seem to me to involve more than simple generalization. The fear was generated not simply by external evidences nor simply in the face of a lack of such supportive evidences, but arose in the face of contrary evidences from a presumably sympathetic and reassuring therapist, even to the point of total unmanageability and the necessity for referral for intensive treatment. 这种投射和内摄的相互作用似乎为后来对客体的恐惧——在男童的情况下，最明显的是对父亲的恐惧——奠定了基础，作为一种内部组织，它是后来阉割威胁和焦虑的基础。因此，回到Novick和Hurry(1969)所举的例子，强迫症儿童无疑对攻击性有高度的冲突，但他偏执地担心他的治疗师会攻击和杀死他，在我看来，这涉及到的不仅仅是简单的泛化。这种恐惧不是简单地由外部证据产生的，也不是简单地在缺乏这种支持性证据的情况下产生的，而是在面对据说是同情和安慰的治疗师提供的相反证据时产生的，甚至到了完全无法控制的地步，必须转诊接受强化治疗。 I do not mean to imply, in the discussion of generalization, that this does not play a significant role in the genesis of paranoid states. Part of what we have been attempting to focus on in the analysis of our own cases has been that the child is exposed to a series of persecutory contexts and experiences, which extend from earliest childhood even to the period of the patient's adult illness. The persecutions may take the more subtle form of an attempt by parental objects to subjugate and deprive the patient of autonomy and the opportunity for adult assertiveness and independence, so that such a repeated "learning' experience can underlie the generalization, which might tell the patient to expect persecution from other objects in his experience. But at the point where projection is introduced into this process, the process becomes resistant to extinction as well as to the effects of corrective learning experiences. Thus I would not wish to rule out the phenomenon of generalization as pertinent and relevant to the understanding of paranoia, but it seems to me that one should not mistake it for the influences coming from the defensive process of projection. 我在讨论泛化的问题时，并不是要暗示这一点在偏执状态的起源中没有发挥重要作用。我们在分析自己的病例时，一直试图关注的部分问题是，儿童暴露在一系列迫害性的情境和经验中，这些情境和经验从最早的童年甚至延伸到病人的成年疾病时期。这些迫害可能采取比较微妙的形式，即父母客体试图征服和剥夺患者的自主性，以及成人的自信和独立的机会，这样反复的 "学习 "经验可以作为泛化的基础，它可能告诉患者在他的经验中期待其他客体的迫害。但在这个过程中引入投射的时候，这个过程就会对消亡以及纠正性学习经验的影响产生抵抗。因此，我不希望排除泛化现象与理解偏执症有关，但在我看来，人们不应该把它误认为是来自投射的防御过程的影响。