Center for Bioethics, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Institute of Philosophy, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Int J Psychoanal. 2021 Jun;102(3):492-518. doi: 10.1080/00207578.2020.1848389.
A large and significant portion of contemporary psychoanalytic theory has given up on the drives. The shift toward object relations in the 1940s and 50s, the scepticism about metapsychology in the latter half of the twentieth century, and a general confusion about the coherence of Freud's drive theory have all contributed to their slow decline in prominence. There are legitimate criticisms of the drives that deserve attention but the drives themselves require a careful examination before any successful defence of their place in the metapsychology may be mounted. The current paper provides an account of the drives informed by the intellectual history of German and English thought related to the drives and instincts as they came to Freud. This history allows us to clearly distinguish between "drive" (or ) and its conceptual neighbour "instinct" (or ).
当代精神分析理论中有很大一部分已经放弃了驱力。20 世纪 40 年代向客体关系的转变,20 世纪后半叶对心理玄学的怀疑,以及对弗洛伊德驱力理论一致性的普遍困惑,都导致了它们的重要性逐渐下降。驱力确实存在一些值得关注的合理批评,但在为它们在心理玄学中的地位进行成功辩护之前,驱力本身需要仔细检查。本文提供了一个受与驱力和本能相关的德英思想的知识史启发的驱力描述,这段历史使我们能够清楚地区分“驱力”(德语:Trieb)和它的概念邻居“本能”(德语:Instinkt)。