de Mijolla-Mellor S
Université Paris VII, France.
Rev Int Hist Psychanal. 1993;6:13-30.
Constructing one's own history is a necessity for each subject in order to be able to think about and to invest oneself in a reality, external as well as psychic, that will, for the most part, remain unknown. It will then come as no surprise that the appropriation of the kind of self knowledge derived from psychoanalysis comes up against issues proper to history. Nonetheless, it does not follow automatically that psychoanalytical theory can borrow models from the historical method and knowledge. For, while in treatment this is said, heard, understood, repeated, and finally disappears into limbo, the historian, for his part establishes, writes, and embalms in the temple of Mnemosyme. And, despite his theoretical positions in the matter of subjectivity in historical writings, it is nonetheless the case that the collective facts so created by the historian's account are of an altogether different nature than the infantile and singular individual history that the psychoanalyst and the analysand must deal with. The conceptualization of auto-historization in psychoanalysis involves a different activity than that of the historian, but nonetheless, in the form of metaphor or of suggestion, the reference to history haunts the Freudian text and probably every psychoanalytical thought process whether or not one is aware of it.
构建自己的历史对于每个主体来说都是必要的,以便能够思考并投身于一个在很大程度上仍将未知的现实,包括外部现实和心理现实。因此,从精神分析中获得的那种自我认知的获取遭遇历史特有的问题也就不足为奇了。然而,精神分析理论并不必然能借鉴历史方法和知识的模式。因为,在治疗中,这些话语被说出、听到、理解、重复,最终消失在遗忘之中,而历史学家则建立、书写并将其铭刻在记忆女神的神殿里。而且,尽管历史学家在历史著作中的主体性问题上有其理论立场,但历史学家所记述的集体事实与精神分析师和受分析者必须处理的婴儿期的、独特的个人历史有着截然不同的性质。精神分析中自我历史化的概念化涉及与历史学家不同的活动,然而,无论是以隐喻还是暗示的形式,对历史的提及萦绕在弗洛伊德的文本中,并且可能萦绕在每一个精神分析的思维过程中,无论人们是否意识到这一点。