Tuckett D
Int J Psychoanal. 1993 Dec;74 ( Pt 6):1175-89.
This paper is intended to stimulate consideration of the problems we face as psychoanalysts in attempting to discuss our basic data: the material from the clinical setting. Some brief comments are made about the importance of this issue for progress in our field, in the context of several attempts by the author to present and discuss process material from psychoanalytical treatment, and also in the light of discussion at psychoanalytical conferences and congresses, such as the Amsterdam sessions devoted to the clinical papers by Jacobs and Duncan. The question of what is going when psychoanalysts present clinical material to each other and discuss it is approached: firstly, by drawing attention to some features of the context in which discussion of that report takes place; secondly, by considering what it is we are doing when we select what we report of a psychoanalytic session; and, thirdly, by exploring certain inherent features of the psychoanalytic situation itself and their impact on the construction of a report and the response to it of an audience. Taken together, it is argued, these three elements have quite far-reaching implications for how presenter and audience might usefully play their parts in clinical discussion, and on the nature of the culture of enquiry we need to develop if we are to have hopes of building psychoanalytic theory and technique grounded in observations of practice.
本文旨在促使人们思考我们作为精神分析学家在试图讨论我们的基础数据(即临床环境中的素材)时所面临的问题。在作者几次试图呈现和讨论精神分析治疗过程素材的背景下,以及鉴于精神分析会议(如阿姆斯特丹会议上雅各布斯和邓肯的临床论文专场)的讨论情况,本文对这一问题对于我们领域进展的重要性做了一些简要评论。探讨了精神分析学家相互呈现临床素材并进行讨论时发生了什么:首先,提请注意讨论该报告时的背景的一些特征;其次,思考我们在选择报告精神分析 sessions 的内容时在做什么;第三,探究精神分析情境本身的某些内在特征及其对报告构建和听众反应的影响。综合来看,这三个要素对报告者和听众如何在临床讨论中有效发挥各自作用,以及如果我们希望构建基于实践观察的精神分析理论和技术,我们需要发展的探究文化的性质都有着相当深远的影响。