Object Relations Theory
客體關係理論
The view of ego psychology is that drives(i.e., sexuality and aggression) are primary, whereas object relations aresecondary. (It is a well-established, although perhaps unfortunate, traditionin psychoanalytic writing to use the term object to mean person. Despite thesomewhat pejorative connotations of object, I will retain the usage here forthe sake of consistency and clarity.) In other words, the infant’s mostcompelling agenda is tension discharge under the pressure of drives. Objectrelations theory, on the other hand, holds that drives emerge in the context ofa relationship (e.g., the infant–mother dyad) and therefore can never bedivorced from one another. Some object relations theorists (Fairbairn 1952)would even suggest that the drives are primarily geared to object seekingrather than tension reduction.
自我心理學的觀點認為驅力(即性慾與攻擊性)是首要的，相對地，客體關係是次要的(精神分析書寫有一個既定但也許是不幸的傳統：用客體這個詞來意指人。儘管客體的講法多少帶點貶損的意味，但為了維持一貫性與清晰度，我還是沿用這個詞)。也就是說，嬰兒最迫切的任務，就是在驅力的壓力下釋放張力。另一方面，客體關係理論則主張驅力是在關係的脈絡中湧現(例如，嬰兒—母親的關係配對)，因此兩者不能相互割離。有些客體理論家甚至暗示，驅力主要是朝向對客體的追尋，而非減輕張力。
Stated in its simplest terms, objectrelations theory encompasses the transformation of interpersonal relationshipsinto internalized representations of relationships. As children develop, theydo not simply internalize an object or person; rather, they internalize anentire relationship (Fairbairn 1940/1952, 1944/1952). A prototype of loving,positive experience is formed during periods when the infant is nursing (Freud1905/1953). This prototype includes a positive experience of the self (thenursing infant), a positive experience of the object (the attentive, caretakingmother), and a positive affective experience (pleasure, satiation). When hungerreturns and the infant’s mother is not immediately available, a prototype ofnegative experience occurs, including a negative experience of the self (thefrustrated, demanding infant), an inattentive, frustrating object (theunavailable mother), and a negative affective experience of anger and perhapsterror. Ultimately, these two experiences are internalized as two opposing setsof object relationships consisting of a self representation, an objectrepresentation, and an affect linking the two (Ogden 1983).
用最簡單的話說，客體關係理論涵蓋了一種轉化的過程，也就是要把人際關係轉為內在的關係表徵。在小孩成長過程中，他們不只是內化一個客體或人而己，而是將整個關係都內化。正面的、愛的經驗原型是在嬰兒的養育時期形成的，這個原型包括一個自體(受撫育的嬰兒)的正面經驗，一個客體(關注、照護的母親)的正面經驗，以及一個正面的情感經驗(喜樂、滿足)。當飢餓感來襲、而嬰兒的母親又非觸手可及的時候，負面的原型經驗就發生了，包括一個自體(受挫的、有所求的嬰兒)的負面經驗，一個漠視的、讓人挫折的客體(遙不可及的母親)，以及憤怒或是恐懼的負面經驗。最後，這兩種原型被內化為兩組對立的客體關係，兩者都包含一個自體表徵，一個客體表徵，以及自體與客體兩者之間的情感連結。
The internalization of the infant’s mother,usually referred to as introjection (Schafer 1968), begins with the physicalsensations associated with the presence of the mother during nursing but doesnot become meaningful until a boundary between inner and outer has developed.Around the sixteenth month of life, isolated images of the mother graduallycoalesce into an enduring mental representation (Sandler and Rosenblatt 1962).At the same time an enduring self representation forms, first as a bodyrepresentation and later as a compilation of sensations and experiences perceivedas belonging to the infant.
嬰兒將母親內化，通常被稱為內射，肇始於那些在母親哺育嬰兒時伴隨出現的生理感覺，但是要等到內、外之間的界線發展出來後，這種內化才可能有意義。差不多在第十六個月大時，對母親的片段意象漸漸整合成持久的心理表徵，而同時間一個持久的自體表徵也形成，一開始是一個身體性的表徵，之後才是一個屬於嬰兒的感覺與經驗的匯集體。
The object that has been introjected doesnot necessarily correlate with the real external object. For example, a motherwho is unavailable to feed her infant on demand may simply be occupied with anolder sibling, but she is experienced and introjected by the infant as hostile,rejecting, and unavailable. Object relations theory acknowledges that there isnot a one-to-one correlation between the real object and the internalizedobject representation.
被內射的客體不必然跟真正的外在客體有關，例如，一個沒法在嬰兒肚子餓時馬上餵他的媽媽，可能只是忙於照顧嬰兒的某個兄姐，但她就會被嬰兒經驗與內射為有敵意、拒絕他與遙不可及的。客體關係理論承認，真正的客體與內化的客體表徵之間，並不存在一一對應的關係。
Object relations theory also views conflictdifferently than it is viewed by ego psychology. Unconscious conflict is not merelythe struggle between an impulse and a defense; it is also a clash betweenopposing pairs of internal object relations units (Kernberg 1983; Ogden 1983;Rinsley 1977). In other words, at any one time different constellations of selfrepresentations, object representations, and affects vie with one another forcenter stage in the intrapsychic theater of internal object relations.
對於衝突，客體關係理論也抱持與自我心理學理論不同的看法。無意識衝突不只是衝動與防禦之間的掙扎，它也是內在客體關係單元之組合，在互相對立時彼此所發生的衝撞。換句話說，在某個時間點上，自體表徵、客體表徵與情緒的不同群集彼此互相競爭著，爭奪在內在客體關係之心靈舞臺上的核心位置。
Internalization of object relations alwaysinvolves a splitting of the ego into unconscious suborganizations (Ogden 1983).These fall into two groups:
(1) self-suborganizationsof ego, i.e., aspects of the ego in which the person more fully experiences hisideas and feelings as his own, and (2) object sub- organizations of ego throughwhich meanings are generated in a mode based upon an identification of anaspect of the ego with the object. This identifi- cation with the object is sothorough that one’s original sense of self is almost entirely lost. (Ogden1983, p. 227)
在內化客體關係時，總是涉及把自我分裂成不同的無意識次組織，這些次組織可分成兩大類：
（1）自我的次主體組織，也就是某些自我面向，在這些自我面向中，人們較能將感受與想法體驗為自己的；以及（2）自我的次客體組織，經由它們產生了各種意義，但所遵循的模式是經由某些自我面向對客體的認同，而這種認同是如此地徹底，以至於人原本的自我感可以近乎完全消失。
This model clearly shows the influence ofFreud’s notion of the superego, which is commonly experienced as though it is a「foreign body」 (i.e., an object-suborganization of the ego that monitors what aself-suborganization of the ego is doing). Ogden’s model also provides apathway back from the intrapsychic to the interpersonal. In this framework,transference can be viewed as taking one of two forms—either the role of theself-subdivision of the ego or that of the object-subdivision of the ego may beexternalized onto the treater, a process that is discussed in detail later inthis chapter.
這種模型清楚地表現出佛洛伊德超我概念的影響，超我經常被體驗成好像是一種外來實體一樣(也就是說，一個自我的次客體組織，監督著自我之次主體組織的所作所為)。奧格登的模型也提供了一個從內在心靈回到人際互動的通道。在這個架構下，可以把移情看成是採取以下兩種形式的其中之一——若非採取自我之主體分支的角色，就是將自我之客體分支的角色外化到治療師身上。這個過程本章稍後會討論到。
A Historical Perspective
歷史觀點
Melanie Klein is usually seen as thefounder of the object relations movement. She emigrated from Budapest, andlater from Berlin, to England in 1926, where her theory of early infantiledevelopment became highly controversial. She was influenced by Freud but alsobroke new ground in her focus on internal objects. Through psychoanalytic workwith children, she evolved a theory that relied heavily on unconsciousintrapsychic fantasy and that compressed the developmental timetable ofclassical theory into the first year of life. The Oedipus complex, for example,was viewed by Klein as coinciding approximately with weaning in the latter halfof the first year.
梅蘭妮•克萊恩通常被視為是客體關係運動的奠基人。她來自布達佩斯，之後到柏林，再於1926年移民到英國，而在英國當地，她的嬰兒早期發展理論成為高度爭議的議題。她受到佛洛伊德的影響，但也因為把重點放在內在客體而開創出全新的基礎。經由對兒童的精神分析工作，她逐步發展出一個高度仰賴無意識內心幻想的理論，並將古典發展階段理論的時間進程壓縮到生命第一年裡。例如，伊底帕斯情結(Oedipus complex)便被克萊恩視為大約在第一年後半的斷奶期同步發生。
In the first few months of life, accordingto Klein, the infant experiences a primal terror of annihilation connected withFreud’s death instinct. As a way of defending against this terror, the egoundergoes splitting, in which all 「badness」 or aggression deriving from thedeath instinct is disavowed and projected onto the mother. The infant thenlives in fear of the mother’s persecution—which may be concretized as a fearthat the mother will get inside the infant and destroy any goodness (derivingfrom libido) that has also been split off and is protected inside the infant.This latter fear is the primary anxiety of what Klein (1946/1975) termed theparanoid-schizoid position. This early mode of organizing experience gains itsname from the prominent defense mechanisms of splitting of the ego (「schizoid」)and projection (「paranoid」). Indeed, projection and introjection are crucial tounderstanding the paranoid-schizoid position. These mechanisms are used toseparate 「good」 and 「bad」 as much as possible (Segal 1964). After persecuting,or bad, objects have been projected onto the mother to separate them from good,or idealized, objects, they may be reintrojected (i.e., taken back inside) togain control and mastery over them. Concomitantly, the good objects may be projectedto keep them safe from the 「bad,」 which is now inside.
根據克萊恩的看法，在生命的最初幾個月，嬰兒經驗到與佛洛伊德所謂的死亡本能(deathinstinct)有關的、一種對空滅(annihilation)的原初恐懼。為了抵禦這個恐懼，自我便產生分裂，從死亡本能衍生出來的所有「壞」(badness)與攻擊性都不被允許，並轉而將其投射到母親身上。嬰兒因此生活在被母親迫害的恐懼中，甚或可以具體化成恐懼母親會進入到嬰兒的內在，並摧毀任何原本因為分裂而被保護在嬰兒內部、從原欲衍生而來的「好」(goodness)。後面這種恐懼，是一種克萊恩稱之為偏執—分裂位態(paranoid-schizoidposition)的原初焦慮。這種早期的經驗組織模式是得名自兩種重要的防衛機制：自我的分裂(即偏執—分裂位態裡的「分裂」) 與投射(即偏執—分裂位態裡的「偏執」)。確實，投射與內射對欲了解偏執—分裂位態至關重要。這些機制被用來儘可能地區隔「好」與「壞」。在迫害的或壞的客體被投射給母親，而與好的、理想的客體分離之後，它們可以被再內射(亦即重新置於內部)而被控制與掌握。同樣地，好的客體也可以被投射，使之安全地遠離於被置於內部的「壞」。
These oscillating cycles of projection andintrojection continue until the infant begins to realize that the 「bad」 motherand the 「good」 mother are not in fact different but are the same person. Aschildren integrate the two part- objects into one whole object, they becomedisturbed that their sadistic, destructive fantasies toward the mother may havedestroyed her. This newfound concern for the mother as a whole object is termeddepressive anxiety by Klein and heralds the arrival of the depressive position.This mode of experience involves concern that one may harm others, in contrastto the paranoid-schizoid position, in which the concern is that one will beharmed by others. Guilt becomes a prominent part of the affective life of theinfant, who attempts to resolve it through reparation. This process may involveacts toward the mother that are designed to repair the 「damage」 inflicted onher in actuality or in fantasy. Klein recast the Oedipus complex as an effortto resolve depressive anxieties and guilt through reparation.
在嬰兒理解到「好」媽媽與「壞」媽媽其實並非不同的人而是同一個人之前，這種內射與投射之間的擺蕩循環都會一直持續著。當小孩將兩種客體整合為一個整體時，他們會開始擔憂自己對媽媽施虐性的、毀滅性的幻想可能會把媽媽摧毀。這種對母親(作為一個完整客體)的新擔憂，被克萊恩稱為憂鬱性焦慮(depressive anxiety)，它也預示了憂鬱位態(depressiveposition)的到來。相對於偏執—分裂位態中擔憂自己會被他人所傷害，這種經驗模式則是擔憂自己會傷害到他人。罪惡感因而變成了嬰兒情感生活的重要部分，而嬰兒會借著補償(reparation)來解決。這個過程包括了對母親採取若干經由設計，以修補對母親在實際上或幻想中所造成之「傷害」的行動。克萊恩重新把伊底帕斯情結解釋為：一種藉由補償來解決憂鬱性焦慮與罪惡感所做的努力。
Klein’s formulations have been criticizedfor relying exclusively on fantasy and thereby minimizing the influence of real persons in the environment, for overemphasizing the death instinct—a concept that is largely discounted by contemporarypsychoanalytic theorists—and for attributing sophisticated adult forms ofcognition to infants in their first year of life. Nevertheless, her brilliantdevelopment of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions is ofextraordinary clinical value, especially if we view these positions as two lifelong modes ofgenerating experience that create a dialectical interplay in the mind ratherthan viewing them as developmental phases that are passed through or outgrown (Ogden 1986). This conceptualizationof lifelong modes of experience decreases the significance of Klein’sdevelopmental timetable.
克萊恩的表述被批評為過度倚靠幻想，因而低估了環境中真實個人的影響，同時也太高估死亡本能——一個大部分精神分析理論家都不相信的概念，並將成年人複雜的認知形式套用在一歲的嬰兒身上。然而，她所發展出來的精彩理論，即偏執—分裂位態與憂鬱位態，格外地具有臨床價值，特別是當我們把這兩種位態視為兩種終其一生持續增長之經驗的模式時，這兩種模式會在心靈中創造出相互辯證的交互作用(dialecrical incerplay)，而不只是被當作終將因成長而過去、或不再適用的發展階段。這種將其視為終生增長經驗之模式的概念架構，削弱了原本克萊恩視其為發展時程之一的意義。
For Klein, the drives were really complexpsychological phenomena intimately tied to specific object relations. Ratherthan originating in the body, drives were seen as merely using the body as avehicle for expression (Green- berg and Mitchell 1983). Similarly, the driveswere not viewed as simply seeking tension reduction but as being directedtoward specific objects for specific reasons. During the 1940s, thisperspective and others held by Klein led to acrimonious debate in the BritishPsychoanalytic Society. Anna Freud was Klein’s principal nemesis, and when aschism finally ruptured the society, one segment, known as the B Group,followed Anna Freud’s leadership, whereas the A Group remained loyal to Klein.A third segment, the Middle Group, refused to take sides. The Middle Group, tosome degree influenced by Klein’s thinking, created the theory of objectrelations as we know it today (Kohon 1986). The individuals associated withthis third segment did not officially designate themselves a group until 1962,when they became known as the 「Independents.」 Among the key figures in theIndependents, some- times referred to as the 「British School」 of objectrelations (Sutherland 1980), were D.W. Winnicott, Michael Balint, W.R.D.Fairbairn, Margaret Little, and Harry Guntrip. This group dominated the Britishsociety in terms of numbers after the Controversial Discussions of 1943 and1944 (see King and Steiner 1992), even though there was no central figureheadwho had published a coherent theory (Tuckett 1996). Although there were in factsignificant differences in the writings of these thinkers, their work sharedcommon themes. All were concerned about early development prior to the Oedipuscomplex, and all focused on the vicissitudes of internal object relationsrather than on drive theory. Moreover, like Klein and unlike the B Group, they tended to treat sicker patients with psychoanalytic methods,perhaps thereby obtaining a more intimate glimpse of primitive mental states.
對克萊恩而言，驅力確為與特定客體關係相連的複雜心理現象，驅力不但不被視為源自於體內，反而只是利用身體作為一種表達的媒介。同樣地，驅力也不被視為只是尋求張力的抒解，而是出於特定理由而指向特定客體。在1940 年代，克萊恩這個論點與其他觀點導致了英國精神分析學會內部的激烈爭論。安娜•佛洛伊德是克萊恩的主要敵手，當學會最後因為這個內部分裂而瓦解時，被稱為B 組的學會分支追隨安娜•佛洛伊德的領導，而A 組則對克萊恩維持忠誠。第三個分支，一個中間圈體，拒絕選邊站。這個中間圈體，在受到克萊恩的若干影響下，創造出我們今天所知道的客體關係理論。在1962年被稱為「獨立人士」之前，與這第三個分支有關的個別學者們，並沒有正式將自己歸屬為一個團體。這個有時候被稱為「英國學派」的獨立人士中，其知名人物包括了溫尼科特、巴林、費爾貝恩、裡特與岡崔普。在1943與1944 年的「爭議探討」後，這個團體在人數上便佔了英國精神分析學會中的大多數，雖然當時還沒有任何一位要角發表過一個融貫的理論。儘管事實上在這些思想家的作品之間存在著重大的分歧，他們的作品卻有個共同的主軸：他們全都關注伊底帕斯情結之前的早期發展階段，都將重點放在內部客體關係的變化，而非驅力理論。再者，像克萊恩而不像B 組的地方，是他們傾向於用精神分析方法去治療更嚴重的病人，也許因此得以更深入地觀察原初的心理狀態。
The Independents served to counterbalanceKlein’s overemphasis on fantasy by stressing the influence of the infant’searly environment. Winnicott (1965), for example, coined the term good-enoughmother to characterize the minimum environmental requirements needed by theinfant in order to proceed with normal development. Balint (1979) described thefeeling in many patients that something was missing, which he termed the basic fault. He viewed this lack ascaused by the mother’s failure to respond to the child’s basic needs. Fairbairn(1963), perhaps the most divorced from drive theory, saw the etiology of hisschizoid patients』 difficulties not in drive frustration but in their mothers』 failureto provide experiences that reassured them they were truly loved forthemselves. He believed that the instincts or drives were not pleasure seekingbut rather object seeking. Moreover, Fairbairn was instrumental in introducingthe idea of early trauma as a major pathogenic factor that tended to 「freeze」the patient at a developmental juncture before the age of 3 years (Fonagy andTarget 2003).
獨立人士在強調嬰兒早期環境的影響時，也致力於平衡克萊恩對幻想的過度強調。例如，溫尼科特就用夠好的母親(good-enough mother)這個詞來描繪嬰兒正常發展所需的最低環境需求。巴林描寫了許多病人那種「有什麼不見了」的感覺，他稱之為基本缺失(basicfaulr)。他認為，這種缺乏是因為病人母親未能對小孩的基本需要適時予以反應所引起的。費爾貝恩，也許是揚棄驅力理論而走得最遠的一位，看到類分裂性病人的病因不在於驅力的受挫，而是他們的母親未能提供得以保證他們是真的因自己而被愛的經驗。他相信本能或驅力不是尋求享樂的，而是追尋客體的。再者，費爾貝恩也引進早期創傷這個概念，當成是一個主要的致病因子，它傾向於使病人「僵」(「freeze」the parient) 在三歲前的某個發展關卡上。
These thinkers were all impressed with thefact that a theory of deficit, as well as a theory of conflict, was necessaryfor a complete psychoanalytic understanding of the human being. Analysts haveanother task in addition to the analysis of conflict. They also serve as a newobject to be internalized by their patients so as to bolster deficient intrapsychicstructures. This point is critical for a clinical theory of objectrelations—the patient’s internal object relations are not etched in granite;they are open to modification through new experiences.
這些思想家都深刻體認到，一個關於缺損的理論(a theory of deficit)與一個關於衝突的理論(a theory of conflict)一樣，這兩者對於人類完整的精神分析性理解都是必要的。分析師除了分析衝突之外，還有其他的任務，他們自身也是病人可以將其內化的新客體，用來強化有所缺陷的心靈內在結構。這一點對客體關係的臨床理論而言非常重要——病人的內在客體關係並非如同花崗巖上的刻痕一樣無法更動，而是可被新經驗所調整的。
Another key concept emerging from theBritish School is that an infant has an inborn tendency to grow towardself-realization (Summers 1999). Winnicott, in particular, felt that there wasa true self whose growth could be facilitated or impeded by the responses ofthe mother and other figures in the environment. Bollas (1989) expanded on thisview by arguing that the primary motivator within the child is the need tobecome himself or herself, which is facilitated by the mother’s capacity to letthe child express his or her true self in interaction with her. The mother whocannot serve in this facilitating capacity may contribute to the child’sdevelopment of a false self in the service of accommodating the mother’s needsand wishes.
另一個源自英國學派的關鍵概念，是嬰兒天生有朝向自我實現(self-realization)的傾向。特別是溫尼科特認為存在著一個真我(true self)，環境中父母與其他人的反應能促進或妨礙它的成長。波拉斯擴充了這個觀點，主張兒童內在的主要動力就是「成為他或她自己」的需要，母親若能讓孩子在跟她互動時表達出孩子本身的真我，就能促成這一點的實現。如果一個母親不能提供這種促進作用，可能就會造成孩子發展出專司於適應母親欲望與需求的假我（false self)。