Apfelbaum B, Gill M M
Department of Psychiatry, University of Illinois Medical Center, Chicago 60612.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1989;37(4):1071-96. doi: 10.1177/000306518903700410.
We suggest that it is recognition of the relativity of defense, of the fact that the same content can be either defense or wish, rather than recognition of unconscious defense, that distinguishes the structural from the topographic theory. The structural theory did not simply add to the topographic theory the recognition that defense can be unconscious; it represents a radical shift in the concept of defense and of the relation between defense and wish. Accordingly, ego analysis, as the technical approach generated by the structural theory, is not complementary or preliminary to id analysis, the technical approach generated by the topographic theory. We attempt to demonstrate that the two theories represent antagonistic paradigms, both theoretically and technically. We suggest that "defense before drive," the structural formula for interpretation, made ego syntonicity a crucial determinant in formulating interpretations, and assumed the relativity of defense. Accordingly, the structural revision made possible an equidistant position between defense and wish, reducing reliance on suggestion and establishing interpretive neutrality, which we distinguish from behavioral neutrality.
我们认为，区分结构理论与地形学理论的，是对防御相对性的认识，即同一内容既可以是防御也可以是愿望这一事实，而非对无意识防御的认识。结构理论并非简单地在地形学理论基础上增加防御可以是无意识的这一认识；它代表了防御概念以及防御与愿望关系的根本性转变。因此，自我分析作为结构理论产生的技术方法，并非地形学理论产生的本我分析的补充或预备。我们试图证明，这两种理论在理论和技术上都代表着对立的范式。我们认为，“驱力之前的防御”这一解释的结构公式，使自我协调性成为制定解释时的关键决定因素，并假定了防御的相对性。因此，结构修正使得在防御与愿望之间能够保持等距位置，减少了对暗示的依赖并确立了解释的中立性，我们将其与行为中立性区分开来。
