Good M I
Harvard Medical School, USA.
J Am Psychoanal Assoc. 1995;43(4):1137-67. doi: 10.1177/000306519504300409.
Even after Freud had turned his attention away from the seduction theory of neurosogenesis, his close pupil and colleague, Karl Abraham, initially sought to investigate child sexual trauma further. In two of the very first articles on child sexual molestation, Abraham proposed that sexual abuse was particularly common among neurotic and psychotic patients as a result of a "traumatophilic diathesis," a trauma-related conceptual precursor of the repetition compulsion. In their correspondence, Freud trenchantly criticized many aspects of Abraham's papers on the subject of sexual trauma, in contrast to his public endorsement of Abraham's work in this area. For largely transferential reasons that this paper attempts to elucidate, Abraham did not encourage dialogue regarding persistent questions on the seduction issue, ceased publishing on that topic, and for some time controlled his apparently deep rankle over Freud's criticisms and failure to acknowledge Abraham's contribution to the concept of the repetition compulsion. Despite their close friendship and shared intellectual enthusiasm, Freud's response to Abraham's 1907 papers, as well as Abraham's almost uniformly positive disposition toward Freud, apparently prevented Abraham from further developing his observations and ideas on seduction and also lent background to their later clash. Subsequently, there was virtually no further psychoanalytic investigation of the subject of child sexual abuse until the issue arose briefly with Ferenczi in the early 1930s, and only occasionally after that for the next fifty years. The death of Abraham, and then Ferenczi, shortly after disputes with Freud may be among the factors that had an inhibiting effect on an earlier reconsideration of the seduction theory by others. Abraham's previously unheralded concept of traumatophilia has relevance to current clinical controversy regarding constitution and sexual trauma.
即使在弗洛伊德将注意力从神经发生的诱奸理论上转移之后,他的亲密弟子兼同事卡尔·亚伯拉罕最初仍试图进一步研究儿童性创伤。在关于儿童性骚扰的最初两篇文章中,亚伯拉罕提出,由于“创伤癖素质”,性虐待在神经症和精神病患者中尤为常见,“创伤癖素质”是重复强迫的一种与创伤相关的概念前身。在他们的通信中,弗洛伊德尖锐地批评了亚伯拉罕关于性创伤主题的论文的许多方面,这与他在公开场合对亚伯拉罕在这一领域工作的认可形成了对比。出于本文试图阐明的主要是移情方面的原因,亚伯拉罕不鼓励就诱奸问题上持续存在的疑问进行对话,停止了关于该主题的发表,并且在一段时间内控制了他对弗洛伊德批评的明显深深的怨恨以及弗洛伊德未能承认亚伯拉罕对重复强迫概念的贡献。尽管他们有着亲密的友谊和共同的学术热情,但弗洛伊德对亚伯拉罕1907年论文的回应,以及亚伯拉罕对弗洛伊德几乎一贯的积极态度,显然阻止了亚伯拉罕进一步发展他对诱奸的观察和想法,也为他们后来的冲突埋下了伏笔。随后,直到20世纪30年代初费伦齐短暂提及这个问题之前,几乎没有对儿童性虐待主题进行进一步的精神分析研究,在那之后的接下来五十年里也只是偶尔有相关研究。亚伯拉罕以及后来费伦齐在与弗洛伊德发生争执后不久去世,这可能是抑制其他人更早重新考虑诱奸理论的因素之一。亚伯拉罕之前未被重视的创伤癖概念与当前关于体质和性创伤的临床争议有关。