Morris H
Int J Psychoanal. 1993 Feb;74 ( Pt 1):33-54.
This paper develops the idea that the fundamental tension between representation and enactment described by psychoanalytic historical theories also determines and limits our theorizing attempts themselves. Freud moves toward this recognition in his late work as he brings a challenge to the lifting-of-repression model of historical recovery. One basis of this challenge is that Freud now implicates the analyst, as well as the analysand, in the tension between the capacity of historical narratives to represent the past, and their tendency to enact it. From the perspective of Freud's explicitly dialogic model in 'Constructions in analysis', the task of establishing historical reference in psychoanalysis cannot be separated from the narrative actions of the analyst. These narrative actions would necessarily include manifestations of denial and disavowal that I designate as 'narrative enactments'. My discussion expands upon this linguistic dimension of questions Freud raises about the limits of the psychoanalytic construction of history. Narrative enactments work against an interpretive restoration of historical reference based upon the lifting of repression, but at the same time, seen as an aspect of narrative functioning, they are founding acts upon which our historical constructions rest.
本文提出了这样一种观点，即精神分析历史理论所描述的表征与践行之间的根本张力，也决定并限制了我们自身的理论化尝试。弗洛伊德在其后期作品中朝着这一认识迈进，因为他对历史复原的压抑解除模式提出了挑战。这一挑战的一个依据是，弗洛伊德现在将分析师以及受分析者都卷入到历史叙事表征过去的能力与其践行过去的倾向之间的张力之中。从弗洛伊德在《分析中的建构》中明确提出的对话模式的角度来看，在精神分析中确立历史参照的任务无法与分析师的叙事行为相分离。这些叙事行为必然包括我称之为“叙事践行”的否认和拒认表现。我的讨论扩展了弗洛伊德所提出的关于精神分析历史建构局限性问题的这一语言维度。叙事践行不利于基于压抑解除的历史参照的解释性复原，但同时，作为叙事功能的一个方面来看，它们是我们历史建构所依赖的奠基行为。
