Development and Defense 发展和防御 The larger question, of course, has to do more specifically with the relationship between the emergence of patterns of defense and the developmental vicissitudes as such. The question is of general significance for the understanding of personality dynamics. As Zetzel(1970) has observed, the role of anxiety and the capacity of the ego to tolerate anxiety and to exploit and master it in the interest of development is one of the most essential stimuli to ego-development. The ego's capacity to mobilize defenses, which can then be integrated into psychic structure and become functional aspects of ego-organization(Hartmann's "change of function"), is a central aspect of the developmental process. More specifically, in terms of the crucial internalizations which we have been at pains to elaborate in this study, introjection may arise quite specifically in the service of developmental objectives in contributing to the differentiation of self and object, or it may arise more specifically in response to defensive needs. Thus the developmental and defensive objects can overlap, often to a considerable degree, but in deviant forms of pathology the defensive employment of introjection seems to override developmental potentialities. It is important, then, in terms of our understanding of the paranoid process to be able to discriminate between these aspects and to determine those contexts and patterns of influence under which the defensive needs come to undermine the developmental objectives. 当然，更大的问题必须更具体地涉及防御模式的出现与发展变迁之间的关系。这个问题对理解人格动力学有普遍的意义。正如Zetzel(1970)所观察到的，焦虑的作用和自我容忍焦虑的能力，以及为了发展而开发和掌握焦虑的能力，是自我发展最重要的刺激因素之一。自我动员防御的能力，可以整合到精神结构中，成为自我组织的功能方面(哈特曼的“功能改变”)，是发展过程的中心方面。更具体地说,就关键内化来说(我们一直在这项研究中努力精化的),内摄可能专门为服务发展目标而出现，这些发展目标有助于自体和客体的分化，或者专门在针对防御需要的反应中出现。因此，发展和防御性目标[此处就是目标，而非客体]通常在相当大的程度上可以重叠，但在异常的病理形式，内摄的防御使用似乎压倒了发展的潜力。因此，就我们对偏执过程的理解而言，能够区分这些方面并确定那些背景和影响模式是很重要的，在这些背景和模式下，防御需求开始破坏发展目标。 Similarly, we understand the role of introjections in the formation of superego as frequently originating in the service of defense against Oedipal impulses, but we also need to understand the process by which such introjective components are integrated into maturer and more constructive superego functioning rather than becoming fixated or undergoing more defensive deviation into aberrant forms of superego development. Ultimately it is only by means of a grasp on the nature and function of these fundamental processes that we will be able to effectively formulate and understand the role of elements of the paranoid process, not only in the organization and sustaining of personality functioning as such, but also on the larger scale of the organization and maintenance of social processes and belief systems. Consequently, in discussing the developmental aspects of the paranoid process, we are dealing with a series of gradations of developmental phenomena which include in their implementation the extreme deviance of the most severe forms of paranoid disorganization and psychopathology and, at the opposite extreme, the constituents of normal, healthy, and adaptive psychic organization and functioning. 类似地，我们了解内摄在超我形成过程中的作用，即内摄常常起源于对俄狄浦斯冲动的防御当中，我们也需要了解那个过程，通过那个过程，这样的内摄元素被整合进更成熟和更具建设性的超我功能中，而不是变得固着，或者经历更防御性的偏离，最终偏离到超我发展的异常形式上。最终只有通过掌握这些基本过程的性质和功能，我们才能够有效地表述和理解偏执过程的元素的作用，不仅是在人格功能的组织和维持上的作用，而且是在社会过程和信仰体系的组织和维护这种更大的尺度上的作用。因此，在讨论偏执过程的发展方面时，我们是在跟一系列不同阶段的发展现象打交道，其中包括偏执解离和精神病这类最严重的形式，以及(在另一个极端上)作为正常的、健康的和适应性心理组织和功能的组成要素。 Perhaps one useful way to conceptualize this overlap and confluence of the pathological and the relatively normal is to put it in terms of the interplay between the specific mechanisms which we have been discussing and the background of conflict against which they display themselves. It is in the area of this interweaving of conflict and mechanism that the developmental process works itself out and the patterning of personality is pressured in a relatively constructive and adaptive direction, or in a more deviant and pathological direction. The degree to which the mechanisms are taken up in the service of resolving conflicts, and correspondingly the extent to which conflicts influence the functioning of paranoid mechanisms, must therefore be a constant preoccupation throughout this discussion. 也许有一种有用的方法来理解病理和相对正常之间的这种重叠和融合，就是把它放在我们讨论过的具体机制和它们得以表现的冲突背景之间的相互作用中。正是在这种冲突和机制交织的领域里，发展的过程自行完成，人格模式被压向一个相对有建设性和适应性的方向，或在一个更偏离和病态的方向。因此，在整个讨论过程中，为解决冲突这些机制被采取的程度，以及相应地，冲突对偏执机制运作的影响程度，都必须是始终被关注的问题。