Abram Jan
Training and Supervising Analyst, British Psychoanalytical Society (incorporating the Institute of Psychoanalysis), 112a Shirland Road, London W9 2BT, UK; Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, Psychoanalysis Unit, Research Department of Clinical, Education and Health Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK .
Int J Psychoanal. 2016 Apr;97(2):489-501. doi: 10.1111/1745-8315.12524.
In this Commentary I will first of all summarise my understanding of the proposal set out by Béatrice Ithier concerning her concept of the 'chimera'. The main part of my essay will focus on Ithier's claim that her concept of the chimera could be described as a 'mental squiggle' because it corresponds to Winnicott's work illustrated in his book 'Therapeutic Consultations' (1971). At the core of Ithier's chimera is the notion of a traumatic link between analyst and patient, which is the reason she enlists the work of Winnicott. I will argue, however, that Ithier's claim is based on a misperception of the theory that underpins Winnicott's therapeutic consultations because, different from Ithier's clinical examples of work with traumatised patients, Winnicott is careful to select cases who are from an 'average expectable environment' i.e. a good enough family. Moreover, Winnicott does not refer to any traumatic affinity with his patients, or to experiencing a quasi-hallucinatory state of mind during the course of the consultations. These aspects are not incorporated into his theory. In contrast (to the concept Ithier attempts to advance), Winnicott's squiggle game constitutes an application of psychoanalysis intended as a diagnostic consultation. In that sense Winnicott's therapeutic consultations are comparable with the ordinary everyday work between analyst and analysand in a psychoanalytic treatment. My Commentary concludes with a question concerning the distinction between the ordinary countertransference in working with patients who are thinking symbolically in contrast to an extraordinary countertransference that I suggest is more likely to arise with patients who are traumatised and thus functioning at a borderline or psychotic level.
在这篇评论中，我首先要总结一下我对贝阿特丽斯·伊蒂尔提出的关于她的“幻想之物”概念的提议的理解。我文章的主要部分将聚焦于伊蒂尔的主张，即她的幻想之物概念可以被描述为一种“心理涂鸦”，因为它与温尼科特在其《治疗性咨询》（1971年）一书中阐述的作品相对应。伊蒂尔幻想之物的核心是分析师与患者之间创伤性联系的概念，这就是她援引温尼科特作品的原因。然而，我将论证，伊蒂尔的主张基于对支撑温尼科特治疗性咨询理论的误解，因为与伊蒂尔治疗创伤患者的临床案例不同，温尼科特谨慎地选择来自“平均可预期环境”即足够好家庭的案例。此外，温尼科特没有提及与他的患者有任何创伤性的亲密关系，也没有提到在咨询过程中经历类似幻觉的心理状态。这些方面并未纳入他的理论。与（伊蒂尔试图提出的概念）相反，温尼科特的涂鸦游戏构成了一种精神分析的应用，旨在进行诊断性咨询。从这个意义上说，温尼科特的治疗性咨询与精神分析治疗中分析师与受分析者之间的日常普通工作具有可比性。我的评论最后提出了一个问题，即与我所认为的更可能出现在创伤患者（因而处于边缘或精神病水平运作）身上的特殊反移情相比，与进行象征性思考的患者工作时的普通反移情之间的区别。
