Family Projective System 家庭投射系统 The invasiveness of such parents is a major factor in the developmental experience of the preparanoid parent. While one can often denominate such invasive or controlling parents, the mechanisms are often more subtle and have to do more with the projective system in the family. The entire family may be involved in unconsciously shaping the projective system and in directing it to the preparanoid member. The unconscious processes are paralleled and bridged into family interaction by collusive nets and alignments which define a place or position for the preparanoid member. The process is completed by his introjection of the projective assumptions and acceptance of the defined place in the family. He comes to regard the introjected content and the place affiliated with it as defining his own self, and he comes to experience himself in these terms. It only remains that he complete the picture by enacting these presumptions and completing the feedback to the family which will verify their projections and assumptions. Thus the growing child is prevented from coming to know any genuine reality either outside himself or within himself. The "reality" he does come to know and to hate is the reality derived from the pathogenic projective process with the family, the symbiosis-derived pseudo-reality of the family projective system. 这种父母的侵入性是预偏执父母[这些父母是预偏执or预偏执的父母？]发展经历中的主要因素。虽然我们通常可以把这种侵入型或控制型的父母归为一类，但其机制往往更为微妙，与家庭中的投射系统有更多的关系。整个家庭可能都参与了无意识地塑造投射系统并将其导向预偏执成员。无意识过程与家庭互动同时发生，前者还 通过为预偏执成员定义位置或地位的共谋网和联盟 被桥接到后者。这个过程是通过他对投射假设的内摄 和 对家庭中定义位置的接受而完成的。他开始把这种内摄的内容和与之相关联的地位看作是对自己自体的定义，他开始用这些术语来体验自己。只有通过实施这些假设和完成对家庭的反馈(以验证他们的预测和假设)，他才能完成这幅图景。因此，成长中的孩子被阻止去了解任何外在或内在的真实世界。他所认识并憎恨的“现实”是源于与家庭的致病投射过程的现实，是家庭投射系统 共生派生的伪现实。 The impact of this pattern of family interaction is considerable. The interplay of projection and introjection fixes him in an unfortunate position in which the opportunities for growth and change are minimized. He comes to accept his appointed place and feels himself to be valueless, deficient, unlovable and unloved, working good to no one, not even himself. Moreover, if he makes attempts to break out of this system or to advance to some level of greater autonomy or individuation, this is regarded as an attack by the rest of the family. They must resist any such change vigorously and convince the "deviant" member of the evil of his ways. He can only break out of this bind by open rebellion if he is capable of that, or by the more pathological alternatives of denial and the paranoid construction. It is of importance that we keep in mind that the family communicates more to the preparanoid than a definition of place and self. There is additionally and implicitly a style of enacting and reacting, styles of communicating and organizing attention and meaning, and overall patterns of family structure by which anxiety-provoking feelings and events are managed (Morris and Wynne, 1965). The stimulating studies of Wynne and Singer (1963a, b) have shown that projective test material of schizophrenic patients reflects certain patterns of thought organization that can be related to patterns of family interaction. 这种家庭互动模式的影响是相当大的。投射和内摄的相互作用把他固着在一个不幸的位置上，成长和改变的机会被最小化。他开始接受指定给他的位置，觉得自己毫无价值、有缺陷、不可爱、不被爱，对任何人都不好，甚至对自己也不好。此外，如果他试图打破这个系统，或前进到一定程度的自主权或个体化，这被认为是对其他家庭成员的攻击。他们必须坚决抵制任何这样的改变，并使这个“异常”的成员相信他方式的邪恶。如果他有能力的话，他能通过公开的反抗来打破这种束缚，要不就只能通过更病态的否认和偏执建构。重要的是，我们要记住，家庭传达给预偏执者的更多的是位置和自体的定义。此外隐式地还有 实施和反应的风格、沟通和组织 注意力和意义 的风格，以及家庭结构的整体模式，通过这种模式来管理引发焦虑的情感和事件(Morris和Wynne, 1965)。Wynne和Singer (1963a, b)的激动人心的研究表明，精神分裂症患者的投射性测试材料反映了思维组织的某些模式，这些思维组织模式可能与家庭互动模式有关。 Two general patterns of family relatedness that Wynne has described are pseudomutuality (Wynne et al., 1958) and pseudohostility (Wynne, 1961). These are both forms of family organization which enable the family group to ward off threatening or anxiety-producing experiences when the individual coping mechanisms and defenses of the family members have failed. Pseudomutuality is often seen in the families of schizophrenics. It is a mode of relatedness which insists on a superficial harmony and accord as shared efforts to mask the underlying feelings of emptiness, meaningfulness and frustration, fears of rejection, loneliness, hostility and murderous rage—all common currency in schizophrenic families. These feelings are denied or only vaguely perceived by reason of a pseudomutual collusive denial of their reality. Similarly pseudohostility maintains a surface interaction of strife and hatred which is directed to warding off the anxiety and expected humiliation that would result from expression of positive effects of tenderness and intimacy. Pseudohostility is often related to paranoid styles of interaction. One is reminded of Searles' (1965) emphasis on the role of repressed positive effects in the relationship between the schizophrenic and his parents. Wynne所描述的两种家庭相关性的一般模式是伪相互性(Wynne等人，1958年)和伪敌意(Wynne, 1961年)。当家庭成员的个人应对机制和防御失败时，这两种家庭组织形式都能使家庭群体避开 威胁性或产生焦虑 的经历。假相互性常见于精神分裂症患者的家庭。这是一种关系模式，它坚持表面的和谐和一致，作为共同的努力来掩盖潜在的空虚、有意义[估计是笔误，应为无意义]和沮丧的感觉，对拒绝的恐惧，孤独，敌意和残忍的愤怒——所有这些在精神分裂症家庭中普遍存在。由于对现实 伪相互地共谋地否认，这些感觉被否认或只是模糊地感知到的原因。类似地，伪敌意维持着一种表面的冲突和仇恨的互动，目的是为了避免焦虑和预期的羞辱，而这种焦虑和羞辱是由于温柔和亲密的积极效应的表达而产生的。伪敌意通常与互动的偏执风格有关。这让人想起Searles(1965)所强调的，在精神分裂症患者与父母之间的关系中，被压抑的积极效应所扮演的角色。