Cooper S H
Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1989;37(4):865-91. doi: 10.1177/000306518903700401.
Some of the most recent contributions to the theory of defense mechanisms are critically reviewed including theories of complex motivational properties of the ego (Schafer, 1968; Kris, 1984), a functional theory of defense (Brenner, 1982), an object-representational theory of defense (Kernberg, 1976), a "two-person" theory of defense (Modell, 1984) and a self-psychologically based theory of defense (Kohut, 1984). These recently proposed theories of defense mechanisms utilize differing levels of analytic observation and theoretical discourse. One of the major differences among theorists involves the variety of referents of defense mechanisms (i.e., what is being defended against) including impulse, drive derivative, object loss, or environmental failure. Another fundamental difference involves the variety of ways theorists regard the relation between internal homeostasis and the external world. Questions are raised about the recent tendency in psychoanalytic theory to develop or invoke different theories of defense to explain a broad range of clinical phenomena.
本文对防御机制理论的一些最新贡献进行了批判性回顾，其中包括自我复杂动机属性理论（沙弗，1968年；克里斯，1984年）、防御功能理论（布伦纳，1982年）、客体表征防御理论（克恩伯格，1976年）、“两人”防御理论（莫德尔，1984年）以及基于自体心理学的防御理论（科胡特，1984年）。这些最近提出的防御机制理论运用了不同层次的分析观察和理论论述。理论家之间的一个主要差异涉及防御机制的多种所指对象（即防御的对象），包括冲动、驱力衍生物、客体丧失或环境失败。另一个根本差异涉及理论家看待内稳态与外部世界之间关系的多种方式。文中对精神分析理论近期发展或援引不同防御理论来解释广泛临床现象的趋势提出了质疑。
