Kohut H
Int J Psychoanal. 1982;63(Pt 4):395-407.
Written shortly before his death, Heinz Kohut's last paper opens with a discussion of the paper 'Introspection, empathy, and psychoanalysis', written in 1959, which he presented at the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Meeting of the Chicago Institute for Psychoanalysis. In his first essay on the role of empathy in psychoanalysis, an essay that according to Kohut provided a foundation for many of his subsequent investigations in the field of depth psychology, he advanced the thesis that the introspective-empathic stance of the observer defines the science of psychoanalysis. The author explains that he was moved to propose this operational definition of psychoanalysis twenty-five years before because he felt that the introduction of the psychobiological concept of the drives (as well as various social psychological concepts) had not led to a true integration of psychoanalysis with biology or medicine but to a psychological and moral view of 'Guilty Man' that worked to distort the analyst's perception in the clinical and applied field. Kohut asserts that by defining itself operationally, psychoanalysis can accept itself as psychology, a psychology that studies man in terms of a self attempting to realize the programme laid down in his depth during the span of his life. The final section of the paper is devoted to a re-examination of man's intergenerational relationships in light of the shift Kohut advocates from psychobiology to psychology. The Oedipus complex is not to be understood as the end product of the uninfluentiable conflict of basic opposing instincts but as the result of interferences that impinge on man's development. Acknowledging the mythic power of Freud's formulation of the Oedipus complex, the author offers a dose of mythical counter-magic (to which the 'semi-circle of mental health' in the paper's title refers) and a re-interpretation of the story of King Oedipus. Kohut believes that the essence of human experience is not to be found in the biologically inevitable conflict between generations but in intergenerational continuity. Access to this essential nucleus of man's self can best be gained if psychoanalysis shifts from psychobiology to psychology. In this way, Kohut concludes, psychoanalysis can return to its own nuclear self, can realize its own essential programme of action.
海因茨·科胡特（Heinz Kohut）生前最后一篇论文写于他去世前不久，开篇讨论了他在1959年撰写并在芝加哥精神分析研究所二十五周年会议上发表的论文《内省、共情与精神分析》。在他关于共情在精神分析中作用的第一篇论文中（据科胡特称，这篇论文为他随后在深度心理学领域的许多研究奠定了基础），他提出了这样一个论点：观察者的内省-共情立场界定了精神分析这门科学。作者解释说，他在二十五年前就被促使提出精神分析的这一操作性定义，因为他觉得驱力的心理生物学概念（以及各种社会心理学概念）的引入并没有导致精神分析与生物学或医学真正融合，反而导致了一种对“有罪之人”的心理和道德看法，这种看法在临床和应用领域扭曲了分析师的认知。科胡特断言，通过操作性地定义自身，精神分析可以将自身接纳为一门心理学，一门从自我的角度研究人的心理学，这个自我试图在其一生的跨度中实现其内心深处所设定的程序。论文的最后一部分致力于根据科胡特所倡导的从心理生物学向心理学的转变，重新审视代际关系。俄狄浦斯情结不应被理解为基本对立本能不可影响的冲突的最终产物，而应被理解为影响人类发展的干扰的结果。作者承认弗洛伊德对俄狄浦斯情结的阐述具有神话般的力量，同时提供了一剂神话般的反魔法（这与论文标题中的“心理健康半圆”相关）以及对俄狄浦斯王故事的重新解读。科胡特认为，人类经验的本质不在于代际间生物学上不可避免的冲突，而在于代际连续性。如果精神分析从心理生物学转向心理学，就能最好地触及人类自我的这个核心本质。科胡特总结道，通过这种方式，精神分析可以回归到自身的核心自我，实现自身的基本行动纲领。
