这是用户在 2024-6-20 14:01 为 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/pdf-pro/00487165-b7fb-415a-9fea-36edc9884c4a 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

'Projective transidentification':

An extension of the concept of projective identification

JAMES S. GROTSTEIN 詹姆斯·S·格罗茨坦522 Dalehurst Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA - jgrotstein@earthlink.net(Final version accepted 31 January 2005)
(最终版本于 2005 年 1 月 31 日接受)

Abstract 摘要

Questions about the concept of projective identification still persist. The author presents the following hypotheses: Klein's traditional view and Bion's extension and revision of it can be thought of as occupying a continuum in reverse. He postulates that Bion's concept of communicative intersubjective projective identification (which the author renames 'projective transidentification') is primary and inclusive of Klein's earlier unconscious, omnipotent, intrapsychic mode but includes Bion's 'realistic' communicative mode as well. The author hypothesizes, consequently, that intersubjective projective identification constitutes both the operation of an unconscious phantasy of omnipotent intrapsychic projective identification solely within the internal world of the projecting subject - in addition to two other processes: conscious and/or preconscious modes of sensorimotor induction, which would include signaling and/or evocation or prompting gestures or techniques (mental, physical, verbal, posturing or priming) on the part of the projecting subject; followed by spontaneous empathic simulation in the receptive object of the subject's experience in which the receptive object is already inherently 'hard-wired' to be empathic with the prompting subject.
关于投射认同概念的问题仍然存在。作者提出以下假设:克莱因的传统观点和拜恩对其进行扩展和修订的观点可以被认为是在相反方向上占据一个连续体。他假设拜恩的沟通性互为主体的投射认同概念(作者将其重新命名为“投射跨认同”)是主要的,并包括克莱因早期的无意识、全能、心理内在模式,但也包括拜恩的“现实”沟通模式。 作者因此假设,互为主体的投射认同构成了无意识全能内心投射认同的幻想操作,仅在投射主体的内部世界中进行 - 除了另外两个过程:意识和/或潜意识的感觉运动诱导模式,其中包括投射主体发出的信号和/或唤起或提示手势或技术(精神、身体、口头、姿势或启动);接着是在接受对象中发生的自发共情模拟,接受对象已经天生具有与提示主体共情的能力。

Keywords: projective identification, projective transidentification, evocation, tracking, signaling, prompting, posturing, image, priming
It is a very remarkable thing that the of one human being can react upon that of another, without passing through the Cs. (Freud, 1915).
一个非常引人注目的事情是,一个人的 可以对另一个人的产生影响,而不经过 Cs。(弗洛伊德,1915 年)。

Projective identification

Summary of the nature of the problem and a proposed solution

Projective identification has become a widely used concept in the mental-health field but still suffers from categorical confusion in its usage. The principal confusions are as follows: (a) the question of the differences as well as the similarities between Klein's original concept as a strictly intrapsychic, omnipotent, unconscious, defensive phantasy and Bion's (1962) 'realistic', communicative, intersubjective extension of it: are the two respective uses of it continuous or discontinuous and/ or both or might they be complementary to each other? (b) is there a difference between projection and projective identification? (c) when a patient uses projective identification, does he actually project himself into the object or into his internal image of the object, and, if the latter, how can we explain the object's response to the
投射认同已经成为心理健康领域中广泛使用的概念,但在使用中仍然存在分类混淆。主要的混淆如下:(a) 克莱因的原始概念作为严格的内心心理、全能、无意识、防御性幻想与拜恩(1962 年)的“现实主义”、沟通性、互为主体的延伸之间的差异和相似之处:它们各自的使用是否连续或不连续,或者两者兼而有之,或者它们可能互补?(b) 投射和投射认同之间有区别吗?(c) 当患者使用投射认同时,他是否实际将自己投射到客体中还是投射到他对客体的内部形象中,如果是后者,我们如何解释客体对此的反应?

projective identification? Is there some process or processes in addition to projective identification that allow it to become communicative to another person? Put another way, on the metapsychological level, as contrasted with the experiential level, the subject can only project into an image or representation of the object, not into the external object per se. The projecting subject, however, experiences the external object as containing the projections and, furthermore, the latter may also experience containing them. I shall try to explain how this might happen.
I suggest that Bion's (1959a) concept of normal, communicative (two-person) projective identification is fundamental and subsumes Klein's oneperson model, which presupposes that the intrapsychic, omnipotent, unconscious phantasy is always a component of it. Klein's earlier versions of the concept of projective identification dealt with how the object became altered in the subject's mind by virtue of the projective identifications but she, unlike Bion (1962), did not take into consideration how the projective identifications into the object become continuously modified by the responses of the object as container. Whereas with Klein one understands projective identification to be evacuative, aggressive, invasive and possessive, with Bion one understands the infant to be communicating, even pleading to communicate his emotions to the object, for the latter to contain and mediate.
我建议,Bion(1959a)关于正常、沟通(两人)投射认同的概念是基础的,并且包含了 Klein 的单人模型,这一模型假设内心、全能、无意识的幻想总是其中的一个组成部分。Klein 早期版本的投射认同概念涉及客体如何在主体的心灵中因投射认同而发生改变,但她与 Bion(1962)不同,没有考虑到投射认同如何通过客体作为容器的反应不断地被修改。在 Klein 那里,人们理解投射认同是疏离的、侵略性的、侵入性的和占有性的,而在 Bion 那里,人们理解婴儿是在沟通,甚至恳求与客体沟通他的情感,让后者来容纳和调解。
Some of the problems in moving between Klein's and Bion's versions are (a) how to consider Klein's intrapsychic version to be subsumed by Bion's intersubjective version rather than being orthogonal to it, and (b) yet to maintain a distinction between the two processes, and, in so doing, be able to name them, and/or (c) to add a third possibility, one that would suggest that two further functions must be added to either Klein's or Bion's concept to account for the actualization of the communication, presupposing that projective identification, in either Klein's or Bion's version, still constitutes an intrapsychic unconscious phantasy. Bion states,
在克莱因和拜恩版本之间移动时的一些问题是:(a) 如何考虑克莱因的心理内部版本被拜恩的互为主体版本所包含,而不是与之正交,以及(b) 保持两个过程之间的区别,从而能够命名它们,或者(c) 添加第三种可能性,这种可能性将表明必须向克莱因或拜恩的概念中添加两个进一步的功能,以解释沟通的实现,假设投射认同在克莱因或拜恩的版本中仍构成一种心理内部的无意识幻想。拜恩说,
I suggest, consequently, that (a) Bion's communicative version subsumes Klein's intrapsychic version and adds the intersubjective dimension of the object's role in containing and thereby modifying the subject's ultimate experience of what he has projected; (b) since Klein's intrapsychic model still persists in Bion's model, however, we come to the problematic consideration that the subject can only project into his personal image of the object, not the object per se; (c) we now follow Bion's notion 'whether there is not some other theory which would explain what the patient does to the analyst which makes the analyst feel like that'. I believe there is such a theory. My theory of projective transidentification includes yet two further processes: (a) a sensorimotor one, that of gesturing, prompting, and/or priming on
我建议,因此,(a)Bion 的沟通版本包含 Klein 的心理内部版本,并增加了客体在包含和从而修改主体所投射的东西的最终体验中的互为主体的维度;(b)由于 Klein 的心理内部模型仍然存在于 Bion 的模型中,然而,我们遇到了一个棘手的问题,即主体只能将其投射到客体的个人形象中,而不是客体本身;(c)我们现在遵循 Bion 的观念“是否有其他理论可以解释病人对分析家所做的事情,使分析家感到那样”。我相信有这样一个理论。我的投射性转识理论包括另外两个过程:(a)感觉运动过程,即示意、提示和/或启动。

the part of the projecting subject, and (b) spontaneous empathic simulation within the optimally receptive object. I further propose that the projecting subject and the object of its projection constitute two independent self-activating systems with shared representations (Llinás, 2001; Decety and Chaminade, 2003).
投射主体的部分,以及(b)在最佳接受对象内的自发共情模拟。我进一步提出,投射主体和其投射对象构成两个具有共享表征的独立自我激活系统(Llinás,2001 年;Decety 和 Chaminade,2003 年)。

Definition of projective identification

In defining projective identification, Klein states,

Abstract 摘要

The phantasied onslaughts on the mother follow two main lines: one is the predominantly oral impulse to suck dry, bite up, scoop out and rob the mother's body of its good contents ... The other line of attack derives from the anal and urethral impulses and implies expelling dangerous substances (excrements) out of the self and into mother. Together with these harmful excrements, expelled in hatred, split-off parts of the ego, including internal objects and even the superego, are also projected ... into the mother. These excrements and bad parts of the self are meant not only to injure but also to control and to take possession of the object. In so far as the mother comes to contain the bad parts of the self, she is not felt to be a separate individual but is felt to be the bad self ... This leads to a particular form of identification which establishes the prototype of an aggressive object relation. I suggest for these the term 'projective identification' (1946, p. 300).
母亲身上的幻想性攻击主要有两条线索:一是主要口腔冲动,吸干、咬掉、挖空和掠夺母亲身体的好内容... 另一条攻击线索源自肛门和尿道冲动,意味着将危险物质(排泄物)排出自身并进入母亲体内。随着这些充满仇恨的有害排泄物的排出,自我中分裂出的部分,包括内部客体甚至超我,也被投射到母亲身上... 这些排泄物和自我的坏部分不仅意在伤害,还意在控制和占有客体。母亲容纳了自我的坏部分,她不再被感知为一个独立的个体,而被感知为坏自我... 这导致了一种特殊形式的认同,建立了侵略性客体关系的原型。我建议将这些称为“投射性认同”(1946 年,第 300 页)。

She goes on to state, 'It is, however, not only the bad parts of the self which are expelled and projected, but also good parts of the self. Excrements then have the significance of gifts' (p. 301). She further states,
她继续说:“然而,被排斥和投射出去的不仅仅是自我的坏部分,也包括自我的好部分。粪便因此具有礼物的意义”(第 301 页)。她进一步表示,
From the beginning the destructive impulse is turned against the object and is first expressed in phantasied oral-sadistic attacks on the mother's breast ... The persecutory fears arising from the infant's oral-sadistic impulses to rob the mother's body of its good contents, and from the anal-sadistic impulses to put his excrement into her ... are of great importance for the development of paranoia and schizophrenia (p. 293).
从一开始,破坏性冲动就转向对象,并首先表现为对母亲乳房的幻想性口腔-施虐攻击...由婴儿口腔-施虐冲动引起的迫害性恐惧,企图夺走母亲身体的良好内容,以及由肛门-施虐冲动将排泄物放入她的恐惧...对偏执狂和精神分裂症的发展至关重要(第 293 页)。
Klein spells out the connection between the infant's oral and anal-urethralsadistic phantasied impulses of projecting into the object and its fear of retaliation by the object in the form of persecutory anxiety as a consequence. We are, in effect, hypnotized by what and whom we projectively reidentify within the object. The bad parts of the self that are involved in the projective identification include oral and anal-urethral-sadistic impulses in addition to persecutory internal objects. Although the subject thereafter aggressively disavows ownership of these split-off aspects of self, including internal objects, these alienated aspects, now all objects (which still unconsciously maintain their identification with the projecting subject) become personified (Klein, 1929) and in the projecting subject's unconscious phantasy do not disown their link with the subject, or, as Klein puts it, the transformed object is treated as if it were part of the self. In other words, the defenses of splitting and projective identification are not entirely successful.
克莱因详细阐述了婴儿口腔和肛门-尿道-施虐幻想冲动与投射到客体中的恐惧报复的联系,以迫害性焦虑的形式作为后果。实际上,我们被投射性地重新认同客体中的事物和人所催眠。参与投射性认同的自我的不良部分包括口腔和肛门-尿道-施虐冲动,以及迫害性内部客体。尽管主体之后积极否认拥有这些分裂的自我的方面,包括内部客体,但这些疏离的方面,现在都成为客体(仍然在潜意识中保持与投射主体的认同),被赋予人格(克莱因,1929 年),在投射主体的潜意识幻想中,不否认与主体的联系,或者,正如克莱因所说,转化后的客体被视为自我的一部分。换句话说,分裂和投射性认同的防御并不完全成功。
Ultimately, the projecting subject and its projected objects cannot totally disown their contact with one another. Splitting and projective identification are associated with a disintegration of the self, whereas the propensity toward integration enforces a return (a pulling back) of the projections. The unconscious pull that occurs between the projecting subject and the contents of what it has projected is the source of what
Klein terms 'persecutory anxiety' (1946, p. 296), that is, the fear of retaliation by the object which now contains projected aspects of the self. Additionally, the projecting subject may, in phantasy, omnipotently acquire control over the object in order to ward off the anxiety of separation.
克莱因称之为“迫害焦虑”(1946 年,第 296 页),即对客体报复的恐惧,该客体现在包含了自我的投射方面。此外,投射主体可能在幻想中,强大地控制客体,以避免分离焦虑。
Also of note in Klein's definition are the following: projective identification constitutes the prototype of an aggressive object relationship, and the infantile portion of the personality which employs it aims to injure, possess and/or to control the object. The projecting subject may also project good aspects of itself into the object. In normal or non-defensive projective identification, however, the projecting subject may extend himself into his image of the object but without omnipotence or splitting, that is, as in empathy (putting oneself in someone else's shoes), planning ('thinking ahead'), externalization (Novick and Kelly, 1970) etc. (Grotstein, 1981, p. 213). Another normal aspect of projective identification is its role in the development of sexuality, that is, as an anlage for the ability to contemplate the loving and passionate invasion of another individual, to say nothing of seduction and all other forms of attempts to influence.
在克莱因的定义中还值得注意的是:投射认同构成了侵略性客体关系的原型,而利用它的人格的幼稚部分旨在伤害、占有和/或控制客体。投射主体也可能将自身的优点投射到客体中。然而,在正常或非防御性的投射认同中,投射主体可能将自己延伸到对客体的形象中,但没有全能或分裂,也就是说,就像同理心(设身处地地想象自己是别人)、规划(“提前思考”)、外化(Novick 和 Kelly,1970 年)等(Grotstein,1981 年,第 213 页)。投射认同的另一个正常方面是其在性发展中的作用,也就是作为能够思考对另一个个体的爱和激情入侵的基础,更不用说诱惑和其他形式的影响尝试。
Later, Klein expanded the evacuative-manipulative nature of the concept to include fusional aspects. In the first mode, parts of the self are split off and projected into the object (Klein, 1946). In the second mode, the self qua self enters into a state of identification with the object to become the object and, through unconscious imitation, either passively disappears to a degree (Klein, 1955) and/or at the other extreme may seek aggressively to take over the identity of the object altogether, as in Julian Green's (1947) novel, If I were you, on which Klein's second work was largely based. The consequences of this kind of projective identification range from states of confusion and disorientation to grandiosity.
后来,克莱因扩展了概念的疏散-操纵性质,以包括融合的方面。在第一模式中,自我的部分被分裂并投射到对象中(克莱因,1946 年)。在第二模式中,自我作为自我进入与对象的认同状态,成为对象,并通过无意识模仿,要么被动地消失到一定程度(克莱因,1955 年),要么在另一个极端可能积极地试图完全接管对象的身份,就像朱利安·格林(1947 年)的小说《如果我是你》中描述的那样,克莱因的第二部作品在很大程度上基于这部小说。这种投射性认同的后果从困惑和迷失到自大不等。
Following Klein, important advances in our understanding of the concept were made by Rosenfeld and Bion. Rosenfeld (1971) separated the evacuative (defensive) from the communicative (non-defensive) functions of projective identification; Meltzer (1992, p. 61) distinguished between the 'claustrum' and 'container-contained', the former designating defensive projective identification and its consequences, incarceration in the object which has been invaded in unconscious phantasy, and the latter designating communication. Britton (1998, p. 5) divided projective identification into 'acquisitive' ('you are me') and 'attributive' ('I am you') types, depending on the putative intention of the projecting subject.
根据克莱因的观点,罗森菲尔德和拜恩在我们对这一概念的理解方面取得了重要进展。罗森菲尔德(1971 年)将投射认同的排泄(防御性)功能与沟通(非防御性)功能分开;梅尔策(1992 年,第 61 页)区分了“隐窝”和“容器-被容纳”,前者指防御性投射认同及其后果,即在无意识幻想中被侵入的客体中被监禁,后者指沟通。布里顿(1998 年,第 5 页)将投射认同分为“获取性”(“你是我”)和“属性性”(“我是你”)两种类型,取决于投射主体的推测意图。
Spillius (1988, p. 62), following Rosenfeld, summarizes the motives for the use of projective identification: communication, empathy, avoiding separation, evacuating unpleasant or dangerous feelings and taking possession of certain aspects of the mind of the other. Her way of distinguishing between the exclusively intrapsychic and the communicative forms of projective identification is to term the former 'nonevocative' and the latter 'evocative projective identification' (pp. 81-6). She states, or herself to experience and respond internally to such pressures from the patient enough to become conscious of the pressure and of its content so that he can interpret it, but without being pushed into gross acting out (1992, pp. 62-3).
Spillius(1988 年,第 62 页)在 Rosenfeld 之后总结了投射性认同的动机:沟通、共情、避免分离、排泄不愉快或危险的情感以及占有他人心灵的某些方面。她区分纯粹的心理内部和沟通形式的投射性认同的方式是将前者称为“非唤起性”,后者称为“唤起性投射性认同”(第 81-6 页)。她陈述,或者自己经历并内部回应来自患者的这种压力,足以意识到这种压力及其内容,以便他能够解释它,但不至于被推动到粗暴的表现(1992 年,第 62-3 页)。

Do projection and projective identification differ?

The obligatory role of identification in projection

There has been considerable debate in regard to the role of identification in the process of projective identification. Questions include: can there be projection without identification? Who does the identifying-the projecting subject or its object? One reason for this confusion may be that projection was originally used as a mechanism that was separate from, although located within, the mind of the subject. Klein seems to have conflated the mechanism aspect of projection with its status as an unconscious phantasy and as an object relationship. Once understood as the latter, the term 'projective identification' seemed more appropriate. The very act of projecting implies a change in the state of the identity within the projector; that is, in perception some aspect (identity) of the subject's internal world is being attributed to the perceived image of the object. As a defense mechanism, some aspect is being disidentified from the subject and reidentified in the object (Sodré, 2004, p. 56).
在关于投射认同过程中认同角色的辩论中存在相当大的争议。问题包括:是否可以在没有认同的情况下进行投射?是投射主体还是其对象进行认同?造成这种混淆的一个原因可能是投射最初被用作一个与主体的心智分离但位于其中的机制。克莱因似乎已经将投射的机制方面与其作为无意识幻想和客体关系的地位混为一谈。一旦被理解为后者,术语“投射认同”似乎更为恰当。投射的行为本身意味着投射者内部身份状态的改变;也就是说,在感知中,主体内部世界的某些方面(身份)被归因于客体的感知形象。作为一种防御机制,某些方面被从主体中去认同,并重新认同于客体(Sodré,2004,第 56 页)。
Klein (1946) first implied and then later explicated (1955) that projective identification was not just a mental mechanism but fundamentally constituted an unconscious phantasy about internal and external object relationships. From this, we can see the subtle transition of her conceptualization of projection from the classical Freudian notion of a putatively autonomous defense 'mechanism', as had already been formulated by Anna Freud (1946), to one in which projection, like other defense 'mechanisms', became transformed into both an unconscious phantasy in its own right and an object relationship (internal as well as external). This subtle transition became pivotal, in my opinion, in the transformation of 'projection' to 'projective identification'. Put another way, since the Kleinian conception of defense 'mechanisms' always predicates an unconscious phantasy about an object relationship and is always object-dedicated, then 'identification' ipso facto becomes the sine qua non for projection's operations, that is, the transfer of identities.
克莱因(1946 年)首次暗示,后来在 1955 年明确指出,投射性认同不仅仅是一种心理机制,而且基本上构成了关于内部和外部客体关系的无意识幻想。从中,我们可以看到她对投射的概念化从经典的弗洛伊德概念中的假定自主防御“机制”(安娜·弗洛伊德在 1946 年已经制定)的微妙过渡,到投射,像其他防御“机制”一样,变成了一个独立的无意识幻想和一个客体关系(内部和外部)。在我看来,这种微妙的过渡在“投射”向“投射性认同”转变中起到了关键作用。换句话说,由于克莱因对防御“机制”的概念始终预示着关于客体关系的无意识幻想,并且始终是客体专用的,那么“认同”本身就成为投射操作的必要条件,也就是说,身份的转移。
When the external object does seem to identify with the projection, however, 'projective transidentification' (my term for the intersubjective form of projective identification) is operant. Projective identification per se is transacted not between the subject and the external object, in my opinion, but between the subject and its own internal-object image (representation) of the object. I came to realize this from reading Bion (1992, p. 118) on the limitations imposed on our grasp of reality when we depend on the senses, that is, we cannot really know the object from the evidence of our senses; thus, an internalized object constitutes an image based upon our sensory impressions, including what we projectively assign to it.
当外部对象似乎与投射物体相一致时,“投射性跨认同”(我对投射性认同的互为主体形式的术语)就会发生作用。在我看来,投射性认同本身并不是在主体和外部对象之间进行交易,而是在主体和其对对象的内部对象形象(表征)之间进行交易。我从阅读拜恩(1992 年,第 118 页)中意识到这一点,他提到当我们依赖感官时对现实的理解受到的限制,也就是说,我们无法真正从感官的证据中了解对象;因此,内化的对象构成了一个基于我们感官印象的形象,包括我们投射性地赋予它的内容。
Similarly, in intersubjective projective identification, the object, now a cosubject, also forms its own image of the projecting subject. Ultimately, a mutually inductive resonance transpires between the two images, the nature of which I shall discuss later. The infantile portion of the personality may, as a result of projective

identification, either misperceive the object as the self, or project into the suspected or perceived reality of the object, and subtly induce or put pressure on the object to behave in conformity with the projection.

Bion's contribution 毕昂的贡献

Although already intimated by Klein, Bion distinguished even more clearly between normal developmental and pathological (defensive) projective identification and between its intrapsychic and intersubjective modes. Extrapolating from his experiences with psychotic patients, Bion a, 1962, 1967) reasoned that they, as infants, lacked the experience of having had a maternal object into whom they could normally project their emotions (1959a, p. 104). He proposed, consequently, that the normal infant needed a mother as a 'container' into whom intolerable emotions could be projected (1962, p. 90). He broadened the concept, consequently, from an exclusively omnipotent, intrapsychic, unconscious phantasy to include, seemingly, very real interpersonal and communicative, as well as epistemological, dimensions but not to exclude the notion of the intrapsychic omnipotent phantasy. He posited that as the infant projects its emotions into mother, she, in a state of reverie, employs her 'alpha-function'to process her infant's projected emotions by absorbing, detoxifying, and refining them in preparation for a meaningful and appropriate response; that is, supplying the name of the feeling that corresponds to the emotion (Ogden, 1994b; Damasio, 2003). Alpha-function represents a counterpart to a mathematical variable which operates as an alternative both to Freud's (1911) primary and secondary processes. It must be noted that the container/contained function shifts by reversal, so mother then becomes the projector and the infant the container, as in normal dialogue.
虽然克莱因已经暗示过,比昂更清楚地区分了正常发展和病理(防御性)投射认同以及其心理内在和人际间模式。从他与精神病患者的经验中推断,比昂(1962 年,1967 年)认为,他们作为婴儿缺乏将情感投射到正常母亲对象中的经验(1959 年 a,第 104 页)。因此,他提出,正常婴儿需要一个作为“容器”的母亲,可以将无法忍受的情感投射进去(1962 年,第 90 页)。因此,他从一种专属于全能、心理内在、无意识幻想的概念扩展到包括看似非常真实的人际间和交流,以及认识论维度,但不排除心理内在全能幻想的概念。 他提出,当婴儿将自己的情感投射到母亲身上时,母亲在一种沉思的状态下,利用她的“α功能”来处理婴儿投射的情感,通过吸收、解毒和精炼这些情感,为做出有意义和恰当的回应做准备;也就是说,提供与情感相对应的感觉名称(Ogden,1994b;Damasio,2003)。α功能代表了一个数学变量的对应物,它既可以作为弗洛伊德(1911 年)的原初和次级过程的替代,也可以作为另一种选择。必须指出,容器/被容纳功能通过反转而转变,因此母亲随后成为投射者,婴儿成为容器,就像在正常对话中一样。
In ascribing this process to the basic communication between mother and infant, Bion developed a unique epistemology in which the inchoate process of thinking begins with the projective identification of the infant's 'thoughts (emotions) without a thinker' (1970, p. 104) into its mother-as-container, whose reverie and alphafunction transform them into thinkable thoughts, feelings, dream thoughts and memories. When the infant's alpha-function matures in this environment, it begins to think for itself by projecting into its own internal container-object with its own alpha-function. Bion's formulation not only broadened and extended Klein's version, but also, in my opinion, pre-empted it in a way by postulating the 'infant-mother projecting-container team' as an irreducible two-person model, from which Klein's model became a default consequence upon failed containment. Whereas Klein's one-person model predicated a single, static effect upon the object in projective identification, Bion's two-person model allowed for multiple dynamic shifts in the relationship with the object, depending on how effective the object was as a container for the projective identifications. Bion states, 'the patient does something to the analyst and the analyst does something to the patient; it is not just an omnipotent phantasy' (1980, p.15).
将这个过程归因于母亲和婴儿之间的基本沟通,Bion 发展了一种独特的认识论,其中思维的初期过程始于婴儿的“没有思考者的思想(情感)”(1970 年,第 104 页)的投射认同,投射到其母亲-容器中,母亲的沉思和α功能将其转化为可思考的思想、感觉、梦想和记忆。当婴儿的α功能在这种环境中成熟时,它开始通过投射到自己的内部容器-对象中,使用自己的α功能来自我思考。Bion 的表述不仅扩展和延伸了 Klein 的版本,而且,在我看来,通过假设“婴儿-母亲投射-容器团队”作为一个不可简化的双人模型,预先阻止了 Klein 的模型,从而使 Klein 的模型成为对失败的容纳的默认结果。而 Klein 的单人模型预示了投射认同中对对象的单一、静态影响,Bion 的双人模型允许在与对象的关系中发生多次动态转变,取决于对象作为投射认同的容器的有效性。 Bion 表示,“患者对分析师做了某事,分析师也对患者做了某事;这不仅仅是一种全能的幻想”(1980 年,第 15 页)。
Spillius summarizes the three ways in which modern British Kleinians use projective identification:
Spillius 总结了现代英国 Klein 派使用投射性认同的三种方式:
In Britain ... I think there are what one might call three clinical 'models' of projective identification: Klein's own usage, in which the focus is on the patient's use of projective identification to express wishes, perceptions, defences; Bion's container/contained formulation; and Joseph's usage, close to Bion's, in which the analyst expects that the patients will constantly bring pressure to bear on the analyst, sometimes very subtly, sometimes with great force, to get the analyst to act out in manner consistent with the patient's projection (1992, p. 63).
在英国...我认为可以称之为三种临床投射认同的“模式”:克莱因自己的用法,重点是患者利用投射认同来表达愿望、感知、防御;拜恩的容器/被容纳的公式;以及约瑟夫的用法,接近拜恩的用法,其中分析师期望患者会不断给分析师施加压力,有时非常微妙,有时则非常强烈,以促使分析师按照患者的投射一致的方式行事(1992 年,第 63 页)。

American versions of projection and projective identification

When the concept of projective identification came to America, I expressed the Kleinian view. Kernberg (1987) and Ogden (1982), however, distinguished projection from projective identification-but differently from each other (Grotstein, 1981). Kernberg defines projective identification as:
当投射认同的概念传入美国时,我表达了克莱因派的观点。然而,Kernberg(1987)和 Ogden(1982)将投射与投射认同区分开来,但彼此之间有所不同(Grotstein,1981)。Kernberg 将投射认同定义为:
(a) projecting intolerable aspects of intrapsychic experience onto the object, (b) maintaining empathy with what is projected, (c) attempting to control the object as a continuation of the defensive efforts against intolerable intrapsychic experience, and (d) unconscious inducing in the object what is projected in the actual interaction with the object , p. 94)
(a) 将内心体验中无法忍受的方面投射到客体上,(b) 与被投射的内容保持共情,(c) 试图控制客体,作为对无法忍受的内心体验的防御努力的延续,以及(d) 在与客体的实际互动中无意诱导客体中的投射内容。
So far, his definition conforms to Klein's (1946) and to my own (Grotstein, 1981). Then he, unlike them, differentiates projection from projective identification:
到目前为止,他的定义符合克莱因(1946 年)和我的(格罗茨坦,1981 年)的定义。然后,与他们不同,他区分了投射和投射性认同:
Projective identification ... differs from projection, which is a more mature type of defense mechanism. Projection consists of (a) repression of an unacceptable intrapsychic experience, (b) projection of that experience onto an object, (c) lack of empathy with what is projected, and (d) distancing or estrangement from the object (Kernberg, 1987, p. 94).
投射性认同与投射不同,后者是一种更加成熟的防御机制。投射包括(a)对不可接受的内心体验的压抑,(b)将该体验投射到一个对象上,(c)对所投射的内容缺乏共情,以及(d)与对象的疏远或疏离(Kernberg,1987 年,第 94 页)。
By 'lack of empathy', Kernberg differentiates between whether or not the subject retains contact with the projection. He fails to recognize that what is projected always maintains contact with the subject unconsciously.
It is readily apparent, except for his allusion to empathy, that both his definitions conform to what Klein and her followers include as projective identification alone. It may be that at the time Kernberg put these distinctions forward, he was concerned with differentiating the borderline personality and syndrome from neurotic conditions and so shaped his distinctions between projective identification and projection accordingly. In terms of empathy, he states that empathy is absent in projection, whereas: 'Projective identification ... assures the capacity of empathy under conditions of hatred, in a parallel way to the development of empathy as a concomitant of the differentiation self- and object-representations under pleasurable peak affect experiences that lead to introjection' (p. 100).
除了他提到共情之外,很明显,他的定义都符合克莱因及其追随者将投射性认同单独包括在内的观点。可能在 Kernberg 提出这些区别时,他关注的是区分边缘人格和综合征与神经症状,并因此塑造了他对投射性认同和投射的区别。在共情方面,他指出在投射中缺乏共情,而:“投射性认同...确保了在憎恨条件下的共情能力,与共情的发展方式平行,作为愉悦高峰情感体验中自我和客体再现差异的伴随现象,导致内化”(第 100 页)。
Ogden, on the other hand, states,
Ogden's differentiation between projective identification and projection differs from that expounded by Kernberg above and recapitulates the distinction Klein
奥格登对投射认同和投射之间的区分与 Kernberg 上述阐述的不同,并重述了克莱因的区别

made in her two contributions on the subject. For him 'projective identification' corresponds to her second contribution (Klein, 1955) and 'projection' to her first (Klein, 1946). Thus, Kernberg and Ogden each differentiate between projective identification and projection but differently-and their differences are all subsumed by Klein's definition of projective identification alone. Ogden (1994a, p. 37) had also been working on his conception of the 'analytic third subject' in which he emphasized an 'intersubjective third subject' and thus reasoned, unlike Kernberg, that the projective identification was an intersubjective object relation whereas projection was a non-intersubjective relationship. In other words, Ogden was trying to distinguish between Klein's first (1946) and second (1955) uses of projective identification. While I personally hold to the Kleinian view that projection and projective identification are identical and that the term subsumes both of Klein's views, I believe that his concept of the 'intersubjective third subject', on the other hand, is an interesting and valuable way of expressing Bion's intersubjective version of projective identification (Ogden, 1994a).
在她对这个主题的两次贡献中。对他来说,“投射性认同” 对应于她的第二次贡献(克莱因,1955 年),而“投射” 对应于她的第一次贡献(克莱因,1946 年)。因此,科恩伯格和奥格登各自区分了投射性认同和投射,但方式不同,而他们的差异都被克莱因对投射性认同的定义所包含。奥格登(1994a,第 37 页)也一直在研究他对“分析第三主体”的构想,在这个构想中,他强调了“主体间第三主体”,因此他推理,与科恩伯格不同,投射性认同是一种主体间客体关系,而投射是一种非主体间关系。换句话说,奥格登试图区分克莱因对投射性认同的第一次(1946 年)和第二次(1955 年)使用。 尽管我个人坚持克莱因观点,即投射和投射认同是相同的,并且这个术语包含了克莱因的两种观点,但我认为他关于“互为主体的第三主体”的概念,另一方面,是一种有趣且有价值的表达方式,用于表达拜恩的互为主体版本的投射认同(奥格登,1994a)。
Other American contributions include those of Schore (2003) and Seligman (1993, 1994). Schore (2003, p. 77) studied projective identification in attachment research and believes that mothers and infants communicate with each other through their right cerebral hemispheres. Seligman (1993) studied projective identification in infant and attachment research and also (1994) attempted to integrate it with infant-mother psychotherapy.
其他美国学者的贡献包括 Schore(2003 年)和 Seligman(1993 年,1994 年)。Schore(2003 年,第 77 页)研究了依恋研究中的投射认同,并认为母亲和婴儿通过他们的右脑半球进行交流。Seligman(1993 年)研究了婴儿和依恋研究中的投射认同,并且(1994 年)试图将其与婴儿-母亲心理治疗整合在一起。

Subject and object 主语和宾语

Klein stated that projective identification was directed into the object by the projecting subject. I hypothesize that one cannot, Freud, Klein, and Bion notwithstanding, project into an external object. I am of the opinion that one can project only into one's image (i.e. phantasy, representation, construction-as an internal object) of the individual. That idea is implicit in Klein's description of the process as an unconscious phantasy. Bion, while formulating the realistic communicative aspects, never accepted that projective identification actually took place in the object-only that the object was affected.
The concept of transference presupposes that we form internal, subjectively modified images of real objects and that we confuse the latter with the former. In projective identification, the projecting subject creates within his mind an image of the object to represent. In manipulative projective identification the subject, in unconscious phantasy, magically (omnipotently) manipulates the image of the object (which is identified with the external object) in order to control the latter (action at a distance, sympathetic magic).
Subjects who use defensive projective identification employ an omnipotent unconscious phantasy in which they believe that they no longer possess those particularly painful aspects of themselves and now feel that the object (whether internal or external) now possesses them. They include: (a) either good or bad aspects of themselves, which include good and/or bad emotions, such as love and/or hate, impulses, and internal objects, including superego; (b) modes of relationships

(i.e. sadism, masochism, hatred, aggression, voyeurism, exhibitionism etc.); (c) omnipotent expectations or obligations of role-responsiveness imposed upon the object to meet the infant's needs (Sandler, 1976) with concomitant concordant and/or complementary role assignments (Racker, 1968); (d) omnipotence (as a transformation of the infant's sense of infinite urgency); and (e) attributions of animism and/or personification (Klein, 1929) to the object so that it assumes a preternatural life force. Additionally, the image of the object is invested with the quality of (f) intentionality (will, agency, purpose, or determination). The qualities of expectation, omnipotence, intentionality, animism, and personification prefigure the object's future role upon internalization by the subject as ) an omnipotent and determined (willful) primitive superego. Having exported his omnipotence and intentionality to the (image of the) object, the projecting subject is left in desolate emptiness and impoverishment.
(即虐待狂、受虐狂、仇恨、攻击性、窥视狂、暴露狂等);(c)对对象施加的角色响应的全能期望或义务,以满足婴儿的需求(Sandler,1976),伴随着一致和/或互补的角色分配(Racker,1968);(d)全能(作为婴儿无限紧迫感的转变);以及(e)对对象的赋予生命力的动物主义和/或拟人化(Klein,1929)的归因,使其具有超自然的生命力。此外,对象的形象被赋予了(f)意图性(意志、代理、目的或决心)的品质。期望、全能、意图性、动物主义和拟人化的品质预示了对象在被主体内化为 )全能和坚定(有意志)的原始超我时的未来角色。将他的全能和意图性转移到(对象的形象)后,投射主体被留在了荒凉的空虚和贫困中。
The subject may then reproject a demanding superego and/or a mutilated objectself (in the ego) into (the image of) the same or another external object, leading to the appearance of claustrophobic anxiety (being trapped within the object). The external object is then felt to be very demanding and yet devalued (by the double projection), and the subject needs space in order to resist being suffocated by the projectively compromised object. In the phantasied act of attempting to control the object by entering it via projective identification, the subject feels trapped within the object. Projective identification is involved clinically in distinguishing between enemies and persecutors, the former of whom are independent of the subject and the latter of whom constitute projective identifications originating in the subject.

Proposed postulates 拟议的假设

I proffer the following statements:
(a) Intersubjective projective identification constitutes not only the operation of Klein's theory of projective identification as an unconscious, omnipotent, intrapsychic phantasy (occurring only within the unconscious of the projecting subject) but also two other process: (1) conscious and/or preconscious modes of sensorimotor induction and/or evocation or prompting techniques (mental, physical, verbal, posturing or priming, 'nudging') on the part of the projecting subject, followed by (2) spontaneous empathic simulation in the receptive object of the subject's experience who is already inherently equipped (programmed) to empathize with it. So far I am discussing projective identification in metapsychological theory. From the perspective of experience, however, the projecting subject feels that he has rid himself of bad (or good) emotional contents, and now believes that the object is the self or indistinguishable from it in regard to the projected parts-and, experientially, the object may concur that it has become affected.
(a) 互为主体的投射认同不仅构成 Klein 的投射认同理论的运作,作为一种无意识、全能、内心幻想(仅发生在投射主体的无意识中),还包括另外两个过程:(1)投射主体的有意识和/或前意识的感觉-运动诱导和/或唤起或提示技术(心理、身体、语言、姿势或启动,“推动”),随后是(2)在接受对象中的自发共情模拟,该对象已经天生具备(编程)与之产生共情。到目前为止,我正在讨论精神分析理论中的投射认同。然而,从经验的角度来看,投射主体感到自己已经摆脱了不良(或良好)的情感内容,现在相信对象就是自己或在投射部分方面与自己无法区分,并且在经验上,对象可能会同意自己已经受到影响。
(b) The projecting subject and the object of projection constitute two separate self-activating systems, and the interpersonal process should consequently be renamed 'projective transidentification' to designate its unique transpersonal mode so as to contrast it with the unconscious phantasy of intrapsychic projective identification proper.
(b) 投射主体和投射对象构成两个独立的自我激活系统,因此人际过程应该被重新命名为“投射性跨认同”,以指明其独特的超个人模式,以便与无意识的心理投射认同幻想形成对比。

(c) A corollary of the preceding view is that one can never project into another individual per se, only into one's image (internal object representation) of themand then attempt to manipulate that image in unconscious phantasy as if it were the external object that was being manipulated. This idea is but another way of stating that the objects we encounter in our daily lives are fraught with personal transferences from our unconscious.
(c) 前述观点的一个必然结果是,一个人永远无法直接投射到另一个个体,只能投射到自己对他们的形象(内部客体表征),然后试图在无意识的幻想中操纵那个形象,仿佛是在操纵外部客体。这个观念只是另一种陈述我们在日常生活中遇到的客体充满了来自我们无意识的个人移情的方式。
(d) Consequently, projective transidentification would function by establishing an inductive resonance between the internal object images formed by the projecting subject, on one hand, and those counterpart images formed by the external object of the subject, on the other.
(e) Projective identification into the object-image is followed by an introjection by the projecting subject of the now projectively transformed image of the object, which ultimately lands in the subject's superego and ego upon introjection. If hatred were projected, the subject would experience a hateful superego and a hated ego respectively.
(e) 投射性认同进入客体形象之后,投射主体通过现在投射转化的客体形象的内化,最终落入主体的超我和自我之中。如果是憎恨被投射,主体将分别体验到一个充满憎恨的超我和一个被憎恨的自我。
(f) Projection from the Kleinian/Bionian points of view is inseparable from and identical with projective identification, but they are distinguished from each other in various different ways in the mainstream American view.

The operations of projective transidentification: An explication of Bion's model
投射性认同的运作:对 Bion 模型的阐释

I wish to explicate Bion's intersubjective model in two ways: (a) from an experiential (phenomenological) perspective, and from (b) a metapsychological perspective. Experientially, the projecting subject seems to project into the object. If the object responds, it is experientially due to (a) the counterformation in the object of a receptor site for the projection, which consists of the object's image of the projecting subject; (b) the object receives a form of projection for which Money-Kyrle (1956) suggests the term 'introjective countertransference' (counteridentification), to which may be added projective aspects of the object's own infantile neurosis, thus constituting what Grinberg (1979) calls 'projective counteridentification'. In this experiential model the projecting subject's image of the object and the object's image of the subject are in active, communicative resonance.
我希望以两种方式阐释 Bion 的互为主体模型:(a)从经验(现象学)的角度,以及从(b)元心理学的角度。从经验上看,投射主体似乎投射到客体中。如果客体做出回应,这在经验上是由于客体中存在一个投射的受体位点的反形成,该位点由客体对投射主体的形象组成;客体接收了一种投射形式,对此 Money-Kyrle(1956 年)提出了“内射性对移情”(反认同)一词,还可以加入客体自身婴儿期神经症的投射方面,从而构成 Grinberg(1979 年)所称的“投射性反认同”。在这种经验模型中,投射主体对客体的形象和客体对主体的形象处于积极、沟通的共振状态。
Metapsychologically, however, the subject can only project into his/her image of the object. The analysand and analyst are conceived of as two separate self-activating systems (Llinás, 2001). If that is the case, then how does the object become affected? My explanation is as follows: two additional factors or functions must be added to the concept of projective identification to render it projective transidentification: (a) to the projecting subject we must add the capacity for a hypnotic-like power to induce transformation in the object, one which owes its origin to 'body rhetoric', that is, prompting, gesturing, priming, 'nudging', prosody, and other similar modes, all being sensorimotor-originating modes of inducing responses on or influencing the object by the projecting subject (Modell, 1980; Kristeva, 1989; Bråten, 1998, Greatrex, 2002; Damasio, 2003; Helm, 2004; Stern, 2004). (b) to the actively responsive object we must add his capacity for an inherent sensitivity to be empathic and attuned to the emotional state of the subject, a sensitivity which Stern (2004),
在元心理学上,主体只能投射到他/她对客体的形象中。分析者和分析师被构想为两个独立的自我激活系统(Llinás,2001)。如果是这样,那么客体如何受到影响呢?我的解释如下:必须向投射认同的概念中添加两个额外因素或功能,使其成为投射跨认同:(a)对于投射主体,我们必须添加一种类似催眠的力量的能力,以诱导客体的转化,这种力量源自于“身体修辞”,即提示、手势、引导、促进、韵律等类似模式,所有这些都是投射主体通过感觉运动起源的模式,用于诱导客体的反应或影响客体(Modell,1980;Kristeva,1989;Bråten,1998;Greatrex,2002;Damasio,2003;Helm,2004;Stern,2004)。 (b)对于积极响应的客体,我们必须添加他对主体的情感状态具有内在敏感性的能力,这种敏感性是 Stern(2004)所说的,能够产生共情并与主体的情感状态保持调和。

after Bråten (1998), calls 'altero-centered participation'. Damasio (1994) believes that we are 'wired' to respond to the other's emotions in a preorganized fashion when we receive certain stimuli in the world or in our bodies' (Greatrex, 2002, p. 191). In other words, a system of bilateral self-activation exists in which the projecting subject evokes something already extant and dormant within the external object whose latent capacity for empathic resonance with the subject's intrapsychic projective identifications could be elicited. Gallese and Goldman (1998) and Gallese (2001) account for this phenomenon by their discovery of the 'mirror neuron', which they believe accounts for a simulation theory of mind-reading and empathy.
根据 Bråten(1998)的说法,称之为“altero-centered participation”。Damasio(1994)认为,当我们在世界或我们的身体中接收到某些刺激时,我们是“有线连接”以对他人的情绪做出预先组织的反应(Greatrex,2002,第 191 页)。换句话说,存在一种双边自我激活系统,投射主体唤起了外部对象中已存在且潜伏的某种东西,后者具有与主体内心投射认同的潜在共鸣能力,可以被唤起。Gallese 和 Goldman(1998)以及 Gallese(2001)通过他们对“镜像神经元”的发现来解释这一现象,他们认为这解释了一种模拟理论,即心灵阅读和共情。
The analyst's unconscious is already inherently formatted ('hard-wired') to anticipate and resonate with the analysand's 'body-rhetoric', that is, sensorimotor induction (Bråten, 1998; Greatrex, 2002; Stern, 2004). Let me cite Daniel Stern's view of Stein Bråten's concept of 'altero-centered participation':Altero-centered participation ... is the innate capacity to experience, usually out of awareness,
分析师的潜意识已经天生地被格式化(“硬连线”)以预期并共鸣分析者的“身体修辞”,即感觉运动诱导(Bråten,1998 年;Greatrex,2002 年;Stern,2004 年)。让我引用丹尼尔·斯特恩对斯坦·布拉滕“他者中心参与”概念的看法:他者中心参与...是体验的天生能力,通常是在无意识中。

what another is experiencing. It is a nonvoluntary act of experiencing as if your center of

orientation and perspective were centered in the other. It is not a form of knowledge about

the other, but rather a participation in the other's experience. It is the basic intersubjective

capacity that makes imitation, empathy, sympathy, emotional contagion, and identification

possible. Although innate, the capacity enlarges and becomes refined with development

(2004, pp. 241-2). (2004 年,第 241-2 页)。
Altero-centered participation ... is the innate capacity to experience, usually out of awareness, what another is experiencing. It is a nonvoluntary act of experiencing as if your center of orientation and perspective were centered in the other. It is not a form of knowledge about the other, but rather a participation in the other's experience. It is the basic intersubjective capacity that makes imitation, empathy, sympathy, emotional contagion, and identification possible. Although innate, the capacity enlarges and becomes refined with development (2004, pp. 241-2).
Altero-centered participation ... 是一种天生的能力,通常是在不知不觉中体验另一个人正在经历的事情。这是一种非自愿的体验行为,就好像你的定向和观点中心在另一个人身上一样。这不是关于另一个人的知识形式,而是对另一个人经历的参与。这是使模仿、共情、同情、情感传染和认同成为可能的基本互为主体的能力。尽管是天生的,但这种能力会随着发展而扩大和精炼(2004 年,241-2 页)。
Joseph (1989) suggests that the analysand 'nudges' the analyst into acting in a manner consistent with the analysand's projections (Spillius, 1992, p. 63). I suggest that this 'nudging' is related to sensorimotor-originating induction, which can include priming, evoking, speaking, hinting or posturing, all of which belong to either observable or subliminal stimuli from the analysand. These phenomena might include tone of voice or atmospherics, which compound the analysand's initial projective identification and transform it into projective transidentification. The two processes together constitute an influencing process whose ultimate effect lies in the vulnerability and now activated and already constituted empathic capacity of the recipient.
约瑟夫(1989 年)建议,分析者“推动”分析师以与分析者的投射一致的方式行事(Spillius,1992 年,第 63 页)。我认为这种“推动”与感觉运动起源诱导有关,可以包括启动、唤起、言语、暗示或摆姿势等,所有这些都属于分析者的可观察或潜意识刺激。这些现象可能包括语调或氛围,这些加剧了分析者最初的投射认同,并将其转化为投射性跨认同。这两个过程共同构成了一种影响过程,其最终效果在于接收者的脆弱性和现在激活并已构成的共情能力。
In postulating that a subject cannot project directly into an object, I have already alluded to another problem. My induction hypothesis (which includes resonance, evocation, provocation, priming, prompting and/or gesture from the subject and spontaneous empathy from within the object) is fully compatible with Bion's conceptualizations, and I suggest that he adumbrated it in his 'transformations in , p. 160). Briefly, the analyst, upon receiving the analysand's projections, which are equated initially with unprocessed beta elements (emotional imprints of , Bion, 1962, p. 7), the unknown and unknowable, is able to contain, that is, undergo a transformation in , and transform them into ' ' (knowledge about his emotions). The source of the analyst's transformation is from within his own repertoire of experiences and emotions, which he seeks to match up (simulate) with those of the analysand and 'become' the (the unknown and unknowable truth) of the session (Bion, 1965, p. 146). My understanding of what Bion means by this is that the analyst must recruit his own self-activated simulation of the analysand's experience and 'become' it as thoroughly as possible. Thus, the source of the analyst's information
在假设主体不能直接投射到客体时,我已经提到了另一个问题。我的归纳假设(包括共鸣、唤起、挑衅、引导、提示和/或主体内部的自发共情,以及客体内部的自发共情)与拜恩的概念是完全兼容的,我认为他在他的《变换中》(第 0 页,第 160 页)中已经预示了这一点。简而言之,分析师在接收到被分析者的投射后,最初被等同于未加工的β元素(拜恩,1962 年,第 7 页,情感印记)的投射时,未知和不可知的,能够包容,即经历一种转变,并将它们转化为“知识”(关于他的情感)。分析师转变的源泉来自于他自己的经验和情感库,他试图与被分析者的经验和情感相匹配(模拟),并“成为”会话的真相(未知和不可知的真相)(拜恩,1965 年,第 146 页)。 我对 Bion 的理解是,分析师必须招募自己激活的模拟分析对象经历的自我,并尽可能彻底地“成为”它。因此,分析师信息的来源

is largely from within himself, but it is my opinion that it also emerges from the mystery of the projective-introjective transmission process detailed earlier.
In support of this latter idea I cite Damasio: 'The neural patterns and the corresponding mental images of the objects and events outside the brain are creations of the brain related to the reality that prompts their creation rather than passive mirror images reflecting that reality' (2003, pp. 198-9).
支持这一后者观点,我引用达马西奥的话:“大脑外部的物体和事件的神经模式以及相应的心理图像是大脑创造的,与促使它们产生的现实相关,而不是 passively 反映那个现实的镜像”(2003 年,第 198-9 页)。
Thus, according to Damasio (personal communication, 6 February 2004), we inherit the capacity to create empathically within us virtually the same feelings and emotions experienced by the patient. Thus, Damasio and Llinás lead us to believe that there may exist a mechanism other than introjection to account for how the object becomes sentient about the subject. In support of the latter theory is Bion's (1959b, p. 168) statement that the herd instinct or group psychology does not exist, only individual psychologies in a group.
因此,根据达马西奥(个人交流,2004 年 2 月 6 日)的说法,我们继承了在我们内部创造共情的能力,几乎与患者体验到的感受和情绪相同。因此,达马西奥和林纳斯让我们相信,可能存在一种机制,不是内射,而是解释对象如何对主体产生感知。支持后一种理论的是拜恩(1959b,第 168 页)的说法,即群体本能或群体心理学并不存在,只有群体中的个体心理学。

Induction by gesture and voice

I should like to develop further the subject of hypnotic-like induction. The analysand, like the infant, may employ overt or subtle levels of language including that of gesture and/or voice (prosody), or subtle physically evoked interpersonal communications (Kristeva (1989), 'le sémiotique', 'preverbal semiology' (p. 62), or 'priming' (Modell, 1980; Ogden, 1994b; Helm, 2004), in which infant and mother, as well as analysand and analyst, read each other's gestures. Priming, according to Helm, includes all the subliminal transactions of information that enter the implicit memory system and, in regard to the psychoanalytic situation, unconsciously affects the analyst and analysand. Modell (1980, p. 260) believes priming constitutes a manipulative mode of communicating affects. The act of pointing represents an early developmental milestone for the infant. By pointing, the infant is both gesturing to indicate his interest in an object with, conceivably, a wish to share the moment with his mother and, at the same time, also conceivably, wishing, in unconscious phantasy, magically to acquire the object towards which he is pointing.
我应该想进一步发展类似催眠的诱导主题。分析者,像婴儿一样,可以利用明显或微妙的语言层次,包括手势和/或声音(韵律),或微妙地引发的人际交流(Kristeva(1989 年),'le sémiotique','preverbal semiology'(第 62 页),或'priming'(Modell,1980 年;Ogden,1994b;Helm,2004 年),在其中婴儿和母亲,以及分析者和分析师,互相阅读对方的手势。根据 Helm 的说法,priming 包括进入隐含记忆系统的所有潜意识信息交易,并且在精神分析情境中,无意识地影响分析师和分析者。Modell(1980 年,第 260 页)认为,priming 构成了一种操纵情感的沟通方式。指向行为代表婴儿的早期发展里程碑。通过指向,婴儿既在示意他对一个对象的兴趣,可能还希望与母亲分享这一时刻,同时,也可能在无意识的幻想中,神奇地获得他指向的对象。
If what I have stated above is so, the language of voice and gesture, which I associate with hypnotic-like induction, evocation, provocation, prompting and priming, differs significantly from projective identification proper but is included within the process of projective transidentification, and may constitute yet another communicative factor in inchoate mental life. Frazer (1922) long ago spoke of this process as 'sympathetic magic'.
如果我上面所说的是真的,那么我所关联的声音和手势语言,与催眠式诱导、唤起、挑衅、提示和启动有着明显的不同,但它被包含在投射性认同的过程中,并且可能构成初期心理生活中的另一个沟通因素。弗雷泽(1922 年)很久以前就将这一过程称为“共鸣魔法”。
My modified version of this process, as alluded to above, is as follows: the infant or infantile portion of the personality, under the strain of accumulating emotional distress, induces a symmetrical state in the vulnerable-because-willing mother (or analyst) so that the mother/analyst unconsciously surveys (self-activates) her own inventory of past actual or possible experiences within her conscious and unconscious self, selectively recruits the most pertinent of them for conscious consideration, and then generates thoughts and/or actions (interpretations) to address the distress in the infant or analysand.
What the mother or analyst contains, consequently, is not the infant's or analysand's projections really but rather the emotional results of their corresponding unconscious recruitment of their own experiences, which constitute their own subsequent reconstruction of the infant's experience to which they resonantly correspond. They remain self-contained in the presence of the emotional induction by the infant/analysand. In other words, the mother/analyst and the infant/analysand each contain 'shared representations' (Decety and Chaminade, 2003). I hypothesize that this process more closely corresponds to what Bion really meant by the analyst's need to 'become the analysand' . The analyst must even more deeply 'become' those aspects of himself that most relevantly correspond to (simulate) those of the analysand.
母亲或分析师所包含的,因此,实际上并不是婴儿或分析者的投射,而是他们对自己经历的相应无意识招募的情感结果,构成了他们对婴儿经历的后续重建,与之共振相应。他们在婴儿/分析者的情感感应面前保持自我封闭。换句话说,母亲/分析师和婴儿/分析者各自包含“共享表征”(Decety 和 Chaminade,2003)。我假设这个过程更接近 Bion 所说的分析师需要“成为分析者”的真正含义。分析师甚至更深入地“成为”他自己最相关地对应(模拟)分析者的那些方面。

Projective identification, transference and countertransference

In my thinking, projective identification is the underlying common denominator in all transferences, whether one thinks of displacement of past object cathexes or the projective identifications of current mental representations. Analysands may attempt to project into the (image of the) analyst as an appeal or to influence, manipulate, seduce, corrupt, imitate or fuse with the analyst. When they do so, they unconsciously manipulate the image of the analyst within themselves and try to force the analyst by induction or priming (gesture) to conform to this image.
I take the position that countertransference is the obligatory counterpart to transference and includes the whole range of the analyst's repertoire of feelings and emotions in the analytic situation, whereas reverie (Bion, 1962, p. 36) strictly designates the purposefully directed and induced state of mind of the analyst who 'abandons memory and desire' (Bion, 1967, p. 143) in order to be optimally intuitive and receptive to his own unconscious vis-à-vis the analysand. When the analyst does seem to identify with the image created by the analysand, that identification may be a trial or partial identification (Fliess, 1942, p. 249) functioning as an intuitive analytic instrument. I would think that total identification would correspond to countertransference and partial identification to reverie.
我认为对移情的反移情是义务性的对应物,并包括分析师在分析情境中的全部感受和情感范围,而幻想(Bion,1962 年,第 36 页)严格指的是分析师有意识地引导和诱导的心态状态,他“放弃记忆和欲望”(Bion,1967 年,第 143 页),以便对自己的潜意识与被分析者之间最具直觉和接受性。当分析师似乎认同被被分析者创造的形象时,这种认同可能是一种试验或部分认同(Fliess,1942 年,第 249 页),作为一种直觉分析工具。我认为完全认同将对应于反移情,部分认同将对应于幻想。
When the analyst is afflicted with contagion from the analysand, Mason terms the phenomenon 'mutual hypnosis' or 'folie à deux' (1994, personal communication, 2003). Mason's reasoning is that, in order for the object (i.e. the analyst) to be affected by the analysand's projected unconscious phantasy, the analyst must already unconsciously harbor the same omnipotent unconscious phantasy himself and must unconsciously seek to preserve its fiction, thereby entering into collusion with the analysand to preserve their mutual belief, that is, folie à deux. I not only agree with Mason's view but also would suggest, that folie à deux has a normal function and constitutes the basis for intuition and empathy. The object's own unconscious is inherently structured to match the mindedness of the subject (Stern, 2004, p. 85).
当分析师受到被分析者传染时,梅森将这种现象称为“相互催眠”或“双人疯狂”(1994 年,个人交流,2003 年)。梅森的推理是,为了使客体(即分析师)受到被分析者投射的无意识幻想的影响,分析师必须已经无意识地怀有相同的全能无意识幻想,并且必须无意识地寻求保留其虚构,从而与被分析者勾结以保留他们的共同信念,即双人疯狂。我不仅同意梅森的观点,而且还会建议,双人疯狂具有正常功能,并构成直觉和共情的基础。客体自身的无意识本质上是结构化的,以匹配主体的心态(斯特恩,2004 年,第 85 页)。
In projective transidentification, the analyst, upon experiencing the evocative or provocative induction (sensory, ultra-sensory, or even extrasensory) stimulus from the analysand, summons within himself those corresponding symmetrical

phantasies that match the analysand's experience. This is how a mother functions in maternal reverie when she is attending to her infant. Thus, when the analyst seems to act as a container for the analysand's reported experiences, I postulate that the analysand unconsciously projectively identifies his emotional state into his image of the analyst with the hope of ridding himself of the pain and of inducing this state in the analyst by manipulating his image of the latter. The analyst, who is willing to be a helpful co-participant in this joint venture, becomes open and receptive to the analysand's input via a state of empathic resonance. This resonance eventuates in the analyst's countercreation of his own image of the analysand projections (betaelements). Stern states it thus in regard to the idea of other-mindedness: '[I]nfants are born with minds that are especially attuned to other minds as manifested through their behavior' (2004, p. 85).
幻想与分析者的经验相匹配。这就是母亲在照顾婴儿时在母性幻想中的功能。因此,当分析师似乎充当分析者报告经验的容器时,我假设分析者在无意识中将他的情感状态投射到他对分析师的形象中,希望通过操纵后者的形象来摆脱痛苦,并在分析师身上引发这种状态。愿意成为这一共同事业中有益的合作者的分析师通过共情共鸣状态对分析者的输入变得开放和接受。这种共鸣导致分析师对分析者的投射(β元素)进行反创造。斯特恩在谈到他者意识的概念时这样说:“[婴儿生来就具有特别敏感于他人思维的心灵,这通过他们的行为表现出来”(2004 年,第 85 页)。
In clinical practice, we allow ourselves the liberty of using the shorthand expression, 'you are projecting your feelings into me', because it is practical to do so and concretely depicts the actual experience. My point is that, while it seems to work, it oversimplifies the intermediate processes that when considered suggest a paradigm shift in our understanding of the overall process theoretically. I refer to Bion's , p. 146) revolutionary conception of 'becoming' and dreaming on the part of the analyst. When Bion used the term 'become', he did not mean 'identify with', which would designate a loss of the self in the other, that is, a loss of ego boundaries. 'Becoming' can occur only when the analyst's contact barrier (boundary) is intact (Bion, 1962, p. 17) so that the analyst may become that unconscious aspect of himself that is always already dormant within him resonantly and which always potentially corresponds to the analysand's projected emotions. I refer the reader to my review of Bion's theories on dreaming and becoming (Grotstein, 2002, 2003).
在临床实践中,我们允许自己使用简化的表达方式,即“你把你的感受投射到我身上”,因为这样做是实际的,并且具体描述了实际经验。我的观点是,虽然这种做法似乎有效,但它过分简化了中间过程,考虑到这些过程时,会暗示我们对整个过程理论上的理解发生了范式转变。我指的是 Bion 的(1962 年,第 146 页)关于“变成”和分析师的梦想的革命性概念。当 Bion 使用“变成”这个术语时,他并不是指“认同”,这将意味着自我的丧失,即自我边界的丧失。只有当分析师的接触屏障(边界)完整时,“变成”才能发生(Bion,1962 年,第 17 页),这样分析师才能成为他内心中总是潜伏的无意识方面,并且始终潜在地与被分析者投射的情绪相对应。我建议读者阅读我对 Bion 关于梦想和变成理论的评论(Grotstein,2002 年,2003 年)。

The subjugating third subject of analysis

Klein (1946, p. 300) posited that in projective identification the infant or the infantile portion of the personality may project its urine and feces, in unconscious phantasy, into the object in order to control it. She never really explained how the 'feces' and 'urine' exert their control, but Meltzer (1966) did. I understand him to mean that the infant first equates its feces and urine with the milk and the breast that has just been swallowed, in part because the gastro-colic reflex occurs rapidly after feeding. When the infant squeezes the feces in its rectum or performs anal masturbation, it is vicariously exerting its control over the maternal object within. In the course of these maneuvers, the infant may, in unconscious phantasy, project its feces or urine into (the image of) the external object at the latter's rear (anus) as it is departing and seek to enter it in order to control it from within (colonization). This phantasied act of projective identification presupposes that the object's and the infant's anuses are now fused an/or connected, that is, mutually identified. Thus, the infant and its feces, now equated with the internal breast-object by sympathetic magic (Frazer, 1922, p. 43), are able to control the object.
克莱因(1946 年,第 300 页)提出,在投射认同中,婴儿或人格中的婴儿部分可能会将其尿液和粪便投射到客体中,以控制它。她从未真正解释“粪便”和“尿液”如何施加控制,但梅尔策(1966 年)做到了。我理解他的意思是,婴儿首先将其粪便和尿液与刚刚吞下的奶水和乳房等同起来,部分原因是胃肠反射在进食后迅速发生。当婴儿挤压其直肠中的粪便或进行肛门自慰时,它在替代地对母亲客体施加控制。在这些操作过程中,婴儿可能会在无意识的幻想中,将其粪便或尿液投射到(图像的)外部客体的后部(肛门)中,当客体正在离开并试图进入其中以控制它(殖民化)。这种投射认同的幻想行为假定客体和婴儿的肛门现在融合和/或连接在一起,即相互认同。 因此,现在被同情魔法(弗雷泽,1922 年,第 43 页)等同于内部乳房对象的婴儿及其粪便能够控制物体。
Ogden's (1994a) explanation for this process is different. He proposes that the analytic relationship between analysand and analyst itself constitutes a third subject,

one aspect of which can be understood as the 'subjugating third subject' (p. 101), which unconsciously directs the subjectivities of the analysand and the analyst. The formation of the subjugating third results from the intersubjective compaction or coalescence of the subjectivities of the analyst and analysand. It is a distinctive subject that acts independently of the subjectivities of either participant and directs each of them in the analytic drama.
其中一个方面可以理解为“征服第三主体”(第 101 页),它在无意识中指导了分析者和分析师的主体性。征服第三的形成是分析师和分析者主体性的互为主体的压缩或凝聚的结果。它是一个独特的主体,独立于任何参与者的主体性,并在分析戏剧中指导他们各自。
On the other hand, the engagement may be derailed by the analysand's need to undermine the analysis. A collusion, a folie á deux, may then take place but can be rendered therapeutic if the analyst, who has been in a partial identification with the analysand, is able to step back and reflect upon what has transpired so as to render the drama into a mutative interpretation.
Ogden's version is experiential. My own metapsychological version is that a 'dramaturge' (the creator-architect and director of the drama), the preternatural unconscious presence or demon that is located only in the unconscious of the analysand, co-opts the subjectivities of the analysand and analyst to create a play in which the relevant unconscious theme is able to become enacted and thus known (Grotstein, 2000). The other name of the 'dramaturge' is the 'ineffable subject of the unconscious' (Grotstein, 2000 p. 19). The dramaturge directs and orchestrates the subjectivities of the analysand and analyst to play roles suggested by Sandler (1976) but within the constraints of the analytic frame and the container/contained (Bion, 1962) safeguard. When the analyst's own dramaturge becomes activated, a countertransference enactment replaces reverie. Furthermore, just as Bion (1959b, p. 168) believes that the herd instinct does not exist; there is only the accumulated psychology of individuals in a group, so, metapsychologically, there can be no third intersubjectivity (except in mutual phantasy).
奥格登的版本是经验性的。我的元心理学版本是,一个“编剧”(戏剧的创造者-建筑师和导演),即位于分析者潜意识中的超自然无意识存在或恶魔,占据了分析者和分析师的主体性,创造了一出戏剧,在其中相关的潜意识主题得以实现并因此被认知(Grotstein,2000)。“编剧”的另一个名称是“无法言喻的潜意识主体”(Grotstein,2000,第 19 页)。编剧指导和协调分析者和分析师的主体性,扮演了 Sandler(1976)所建议的角色,但在分析框架和容器/被容纳(Bion,1962)的限制下保护。当分析师自己的编剧被激活时,反移情表现取代了幻想。此外,正如 Bion(1959b,第 168 页)认为群体本能并不存在;只有群体中个体的积累心理,因此,在元心理学上,除了在共同幻想中,不可能存在第三种互为主体性。

Concluding thoughts 总结思考

While projective identification, as Klein understood it, helps us understand the infant's fate in being confronted by objects which are suffused with his projections, Bion's version helps us understand the nature of the pre-lexical emotional communication between infant and mother, the complexity of which warrants a new designation, 'projective transidentification'. I suggest that the latter includes prompting, tracking or signalling (Couzin and Krause, 2003) to the object in addition to projective identification. I also consider the nature of this intersubjective communication to lie on a continuum in which the object's reverie and intution range from ultra- or even extrasensory perception through primary maternal preoccupation and transformations in to projective transidentification.
在克莱因理解的投射认同中,帮助我们理解婴儿面对充满他投射的对象时的命运,而拜恩的版本则帮助我们理解婴儿与母亲之间的前语言情感沟通的本质,其复杂性需要一个新的称谓,“投射性跨认同”。我认为后者包括对对象的提示、跟踪或信号传递(Couzin 和 Krause,2003),除了投射认同。我还考虑这种主体间沟通的本质在一个连续体上,其中对象的幻想和直觉从超感知甚至超感知感知,通过初级母性专注和转变到投射性跨认同。
I have thus far portrayed the operation of projective identification as originating in the infatile portion of the projecting subject's personality and as being complexly resonated within the personality of the object. It must be stressed, however, that during the process of analysis, as in infant-mother transactions, and in daily life generally, the vectors of the transactions of projective transidentification operate bilaterally, that is, the object instantly becomes a sender, and the originating projective sender thereupon becomes a receiver, that is, a dialogue is taking place.
Moreover, newer studies on projective identification (what I now call 'projective transidentification') emphasize the effects, for instance, of mother's projections on the long-term outcome of the infant's personality development and behavior. In a long-term outcome study of mothers and infants, Apprey (1987) collected unconscious maternal phantasies about their infants from the fetal stage until the third year of the child's life and found significant positive correlations between the unconscious phantasies and the outcome in regard to the child's personality and behavior. One of the most significant aspects of projective identification clinically is its functions in selecting external objects to represent objects in psychic reality, whereas the most significant clinical aspects of projective transidentification is communication between two psychic realities.
此外,对于投射识别(我现在称之为“投射跨识别”)的最新研究强调了母亲的投射对婴儿个性发展和行为的长期结果的影响。在一项关于母亲和婴儿的长期结果研究中,Apprey(1987 年)收集了母亲对其婴儿的无意识幻想,从胎儿阶段到孩子三岁生日,并发现无意识幻想与孩子个性和行为结果之间存在显著正相关。在临床上,投射识别最显著的一个方面是其在选择外部对象来代表心理现实中的对象的功能,而投射跨识别最显著的临床方面是两个心理现实之间的沟通。
Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Thomas Ogden, Elizabeth Bott Spillius, and Ely Garfinkle for their invaluable assistance to me in preparing this manuscript.
致谢:我要感谢 Thomas Ogden、Elizabeth Bott Spillius 和 Ely Garfinkle 对我在准备这篇手稿中提供的宝贵帮助。

Translations of summary 总结翻译

„Projektive Transidentifizierung“: eine Erweiterung des Konzepts der projektiven Identifizierung. Das Konzept der projektiven Identifizierung wirft nach wie vor Fragen auf. Der Autor formuliert folgende Hypothesen: Kleins traditionelle Sichtweise und Bions Erweiterung und Revision derselben bilden ein umgekehrtes Kontinuum. Der Verfasser postuliert ferner, dass Bions Konzept der kommunikativen intersubjektiven projektiven Identifizierung (fortan als „projektive Transidentifizierung“ bezeichnet) primär ist und Kleins früheren unbewussten, omnipotenten intrapsychischen Modus umfasst, aber auch Bions „realistischen“ Kommunikationsmodus mit einschließt. Der Autor vertritt infolgedessen die These, das die intersubjektive projektive Identifizierung sowohl die Operation einer unbewussten Phantasie omnipotenter intrapsychischer projektiver Identifizierung konstituiert, die allein in der inneren Welt des projizierenden Subjekts verortet ist, als auch zwei weitere Vorgänge: bewusste und/oder vorbewusste Modi der sensomotorischen Induktion, die seitens des projizierenden Subjekts signalisierende und/oder evozierende oder instruierende Gesten oder Techniken (mental, Körper, Sprache, Körperhaltung, Bahnung) beinhalten, die dazu führen, dass das rezeptive, über inhärente, die Empathie mit dem auslösenden Subjekt stützende „Verschaltungen“ verfügende Objekt dessen Erleben spontan empathisch simuliert.
“投射性跨认同”:是对投射性认同概念的扩展。投射性认同概念仍然存在疑问。作者提出以下假设:克莱恩的传统观点和拜恩对其进行的扩展和修订形成了一个相反的连续体。作者进一步假设,拜恩的沟通性主体间投射性认同概念(以下简称为“投射性跨认同”)是首要的,包括克莱恩早期的无意识、全能的内心模式,同时也包括拜恩的“现实主义”沟通模式。 作者因此认为,互为主体的投射性认同构成了一种无意识幻想的操作,即全能的内心投射性认同,仅定位于投射主体的内在世界,以及另外两个过程:投射主体发出信号和/或唤起或指导手势或技术(心理、身体、语言、体态、引导)的有意识和/或潜意识的感觉运动诱导模式,导致接受性对象通过内在的、支持与触发主体共情的“连接”来模拟其体验。
"Transidentificación proyectiva": una ampliación del concepto de identificación proyectiva. Aún persisten interrogantes sobre el concepto de identificación proyectiva. El autor presenta la siguiente hipótesis: la visión tradicional de Klein y su ampliación y revisión elaborada por Bion pueden considerarse como un continuo en sentido inverso. Grotstein postula que el concepto de identificación proyectiva intersubjetiva y comunicativa de Bion (que el autor denomina 'transidentificación proyectiva') es un concepto primario que incluye tanto la modalidad intrapsíquica inconsciente y omnipotente temprana de Klein, como también el aspecto comunicativo 'realista' de Bion. En consecuencia,, el autor postula la hipótesis de que la identificación proyectiva intersubjetiva constituye no solo el funcionamiento de una fantasía inconsciente de identificación proyectiva intrapsíquica, omnipotente unicamente dentro del mundo interno del sujeto que proyecta, sino que además incluye otros dos procesos: las modalidades conscientes y/o preconscientes de inducción sensorio-motriz, que incluirían gestos o técnicas (mentales, corporales, discursivas, posturales o de priming) indicadoras y/o evocadoras o de solicitación por parte del sujeto que establece la proyección, seguidas de una simulación empática espontánea en el objeto receptor de la experiencia del sujeto. En esta simulación el objeto receptor ya está intrínsecamente 'cableado' para ser empático con el sujeto incitador.
"投射性跨身认同": 对投射性认同概念的扩展。关于投射性认同概念仍存在疑问。作者提出以下假设:Klein 的传统观点及 Bion 的扩展和修订可以被视为一个相反的连续体。Grotstein 提出,Bion 的交互主体和沟通性投射性认同概念(作者称之为“投射性跨身认同”)是一个包括 Klein 早期无意识和全能心理内部模式以及 Bion 的“现实主义”沟通性方面的初级概念。 因此,作者提出假设,即互为主体的投射性认同构成的不仅仅是一种潜意识中的投射性认同幻想的功能,这种幻想仅在投射主体的内部世界中具有全能性,而且还包括其他两个过程:意识和/或前意识诱导感觉-运动模式,其中包括手势或技术(心理、身体、言语、姿势或启动)指示和/或唤起或由建立投射的主体发出的请求,随后是体验主体的对象的自发共情模拟。在这种模拟中,接收对象已经内在地“连接”以对激发主体产生共情。
La transidentification projective : une extension du concept d'identification projective. L'identification projective pose toujours un certain nombre de questions. L'auteur propose les hypothèses suivantes : la conception originelle de Mélanie Klein et les révisions et extensions proposées par Bion peuvent être considérées comme occupant un continuum en revers. L'auteur part du postulat que le concept de Bion de l'identification communicative projective intersubjective (que l'auteur renomme «transidentification projective ») est inclus dans les modalités inconscientes, omnipotentes, intrapsychiques décrites antérieurement par Mélanie Klein, mais contient également le mode «réaliste » de communication de
Bion lui-même. Par conséquent, l'auteur formule l'hypothèse que l'identification projective intersubjective constitue à la fois l'opération d'un fantasme inconscient d'identification projective intrapsychique se déroulant exclusivement au sein du monde interne du sujet projetant - à laquelle s'ajoute deux autres processus : des modes conscients et/ou préconscients d'induction sensori-motrice, qui comporterait le signal et/ou l'évocation ou l'incitation à des gestes ou des techniques (mentaux, corporels, de discours, de posture ou d'amorçage) de la part du sujet projetant ; phénomène suivi d'une simulation spontanée empathique chez l'objet récepteur de l'expérience du sujet, dans laquelle l'objet récepteur est déjà « câblé» de façon inhérente pour être dans l'empathie avec le sujet inducteur.
生物本身。因此,作者提出假设,即互为主体的投射性认同构成了一种无意识的投射性认同幻想操作,仅在投射主体的内部世界中进行 - 除此之外,还有另外两个过程:意识和/或半意识的感觉-运动诱导模式,其中包括信号和/或引发或激励主体投射者进行动作或技术(心理、身体、言语、姿势或启动);这种现象后面是接收主体对主体经验的自发共情模拟,其中接收主体已经固有地“连接”以与诱导主体产生共情。
"Transidentificazione proiettiva": un'estensione del concetto di identificazione proiettiva. Sul concetto di identificazione proiettiva restano ancora dei dubbi. L'autore dell'articolo presenta la seguente ipotesi: si può pensare al punto di vista tradizionale della Klein e alla sua estensione e revisione da parte di Bion come se questi occupassero un continuum all' inverso? Egli postula che il concetto bioniano di identificazione proiettiva intersoggettiva comunicativa (che l'autore ribattezza "transidentificazione proiettiva") sia primario e includa la modalità intrapsichica primitiva, onnipotente, inconscia della Klein, ma anche la modalità comunicativa "realistica" di Bion. L'autore avanza quindi l'ipotesi che l'identificazione proiettiva intersoggettiva costituisca l'operazione di una fantasia inconscia di identificazione proiettiva intrapsichica onnipotente esclusivamente entro il mondo interno del soggetto che mette in atto la proiezione - in aggiunta a due altri processi: le modalità consce e/o preconsce dell' induzione sensomotoria, che includerebbero gesti o tecniche (mentali, del corpo, del discorso, della postura o del priming) di segnalazione e/o evocazione o sollecitazione da parte del soggetto proiettante, seguite dalla simulazione enfatica spontanea nell'oggetto ricettivo dell'esperienza del soggetto, nella quale l'oggetto ricettivo è già insitamente "cablato" per nutrire empatia nei confronti del soggetto sollecitante.
"投射性跨认同": 是对投射性认同概念的扩展。对于投射性认同概念仍然存在疑问。文章的作者提出了以下假设:可以将 Klein 的传统观点及其由 Bion 扩展和修订的观点看作是占据相反连续体吗?他假设,Bion 的跨主体沟通性投射性认同概念(作者称之为"跨认同投射")是首要的,并包括 Klein 的原始、全能、无意识的心理内部模式,以及 Bion 的"现实主义"沟通模式。 作者因此提出了一个假设,即互为主体的投射性认同构成了一种无意识的内部投射认同的全能幻想操作,仅限于主体内部世界中实施投射的行为 - 除了两个其他过程:意识和/或潜意识的感觉运动诱导方式,其中包括投射主体通过姿势或技术(心理、身体、言语、姿势或启动)发出信号和/或唤起或引发的行为,随后在主体经验的接受对象中自发进行强调性模拟,接受对象已经天生“连接”以对主体发出请求产生共鸣。

References 参考资料

Apprey M (1987). Projective identification and maternal misconception in disturbed mothers. Br J Psychother 4:5-22.
Apprey M (1987). 投射认同和扭曲母亲的误解。英国精神分析杂志 4:5-22。
Bion WR (1959a). Attacks on linking. In: Second thoughts: Selected papers on psycho-analysis, p. 93-109. London: Heinemann, 1967.
Bion WR(1959a)。攻击链接。在:第二次思考:精神分析选集,第 93-109 页。伦敦:Heinemann,1967 年。
Bion WR (1959b). Experiences in groups, and other papers. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1961. .
Bion WR(1959b)。团体经验及其他论文。纽约,纽约州:基础图书,1961 年。
Bion WR (1962). Learning from experience. London: Heinemann. 111 p.
Bion WR(1962 年)。从经验中学习。伦敦:海曼出版社。111 页。
Bion WR (1965). Transformations. London: Heinemann. 183 p.
Bion WR(1965 年)。转化。伦敦:海涅曼。183 页。
Bion WR (1967). Second thoughts: Selected papers on psycho-analysis. London: Heinemann. .
Bion WR(1967)。再思考:精神分析选集。伦敦:海涅曼。
Bion WR (1970). Attention and interpretation. London: Tavistock Publications. 136 p.
Bion WR(1970 年)。注意力和解释。伦敦:Tavistock 出版社。136 页。
Bion WR (1973). Bion Brazilian lectures 1. Rio de Janeiro: Imago. [Reprinted by Karnac Books, 1990.]
Bion WR(1973 年)。Bion 巴西讲座 1。里约热内卢:伊马戈。[由 Karnac Books 于 1990 年重印。]
Bion WR (1980). Bion in New York and São Paulo, Bion F, editor. Perthshire: Clunie Press. 127 p.
Bion WR(1980 年)。Bion 在纽约和圣保罗,编辑 Bion F。珀斯郡:Clunie 出版社。127 页。
Bion WR (1992). Cogitations, Bion F, editor. London: Karnac. 406 p.
Bion WR(1992 年)。Cogitations,Bion F,编辑。伦敦:Karnac。406 页。
Bråten S (1998). Infant learning by altero-centric participation: The reverse of egocentric observation in autism. In: Bråten S, editor. Intersubjective communication and emotion in early ontogeny, p. 105-24. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Bråten S(1998)。通过他者中心参与的婴儿学习:自闭症中自我中心观察的反面。在:Bråten S,编辑。早期本体论中的互为主体沟通和情感,第 105-24 页。剑桥,马萨诸塞州:剑桥大学出版社。
Britton R (1998). Belief and imagination: Explorations in psychoanalysis. London: Routledge. .
布里顿 R(1998 年)。信仰与想象:精神分析探索。伦敦:Routledge。
Couzin ID, Krause JK (2003). Self-organization and collective behavior in vertebrates. Advances Study Behavior 32:1-75.
Cousin ID,Krause JK(2003)。脊椎动物的自组织和集体行为。行为学进展研究 32:1-75。
Damasio AR (2003). Looking for Spinoza: Joy, sorrow, and the feeling brain. New York, NY: Harcourt. .
达马西奥 AR(2003 年)。寻找斯宾诺莎:快乐、悲伤和感觉大脑。纽约,NY:哈考特。
Decety J, Chaminade T (2003). Neural correlates of feeling sympathy. Neuropsychologia 41: .
Decety J, Chaminade T (2003). 感受同情的神经相关性。神经心理学 41:
Fliess R (1942). The metapsychology of the analyst. Psychoanal Q 11:211-27.
Fliess R(1942 年)。分析师的元心理学。精神分析季刊 11:211-27。
Frazer JG (1922). The golden bough. New York, NY: Macmillan. 752 p.
弗雷泽 JG(1922 年)。金枝。纽约,纽约:麦克米兰。752 页。
Freud A (1946). The ego and the mechanisms of defense. New York, NY: Int. Univ. Press, 1954. .
弗洛伊德 A(1946 年)。自我与防御机制。纽约,纽约州:国际大学出版社,1954 年。
Freud S (1911). Formulations of the two principles of mental functioning. SE 12, p. 213-26.
弗洛伊德 S(1911 年)。心理功能的两个原则的表述。SE 12,第 213-26 页。
Freud S (1915). The unconscious. SE 14, p. 159-215.
弗洛伊德 S(1915 年)。无意识。SE 14,第 159-215 页。
Gallese V (2001). The 'shared manifold' hypothesis: From mirror neurons to empathy. Conscious Stud 8:33-50.
加莱斯 V(2001 年)。“共享的机体”假设:从镜像神经元到共情。《意识研究》8:33-50。
Gallese V, Goldman A (1998). Mirror neurons and the simulation theory of mind-reading. Trends Cogn Sci 2:493-501.
加莱斯 V,戈德曼 A(1998 年)。镜像神经元和模拟心灵阅读理论。认知科学趋势 2:493-501。
Greatrex TS (2002). Projective identification: How does it work? Neuro-Psychoanalysis 4: .
Greatrex TS(2002 年)。投射认同:它是如何运作的?神经-精神分析 4:
Green J (1947). If I were you ..., McEwen JHF, translator. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1950.
绿色 J(1947 年)。如果我是你...,麦克尤恩 JHF,译者。伦敦:艾尔和斯波蒂斯伍德,1950 年。
Grinberg L (1979). Countertransference and projective counteridentification. Contemp Psychoanal 15:226-47.
Grinberg L(1979)。反移情和投射性反认同。当代精神分析学 15:226-47。
Grotstein JS (1981). Splitting and projective identification. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. 236 p.
Grotstein JS(1981 年)。分裂与投射认同。纽约,纽约州:Jason Aronson。236 页。
Grotstein J (2000). Who is the dreamer who dreams the dream? A study of psychic presences. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.
Grotstein J (2000). 谁是做梦的人?心灵存在的研究。希尔斯代尔,新泽西州:分析出版社。
Grotstein JS (2002). 'We are such stuff as dreams are made on': Annotations on dreams and dreaming in Bion's works. In: Neri C, Pines M, Friedman R, editors. Dreams in group psychotherapy: Theory and technique, p. 110-45. London: Jessica Kingsley.
格罗茨坦 JS(2002 年)。《我们就是梦想构成的东西》:对拜恩作品中的梦想和梦想进行注释。在:内里 C,派恩斯 M,弗里德曼 R,编辑。团体心理治疗中的梦想:理论与技术,第 110-45 页。伦敦:杰西卡·金斯利。
Grotstein JS (2003). The 'seventh servant': The implications of a truth drive in Bion's theory of ' '. Int J Psychoanal 85:1081-102.
Grotstein JS(2003 年)。《第七仆人》:拜恩理论中真理驱动的含义。国际精神分析杂志 85:1081-102。
Helm F (2004). Conscious, unconscious and non-conscious communication. Unpublished manuscript.
赫尔姆 F(2004 年)。意识、无意识和非意识沟通。未发表手稿。
Joseph B (1989). Psychic equilibrium and psychic change: Selected papers of Betty Joseph, Feldman M, Spillius EB, editors. London: Routledge.
Joseph B(1989)。心灵平衡与心灵变化:贝蒂·约瑟夫选集,费尔德曼 M,斯皮利厄斯 EB,编辑。伦敦:劳特里奇。
Kernberg O (1987). Projection and projective identification: Developmental and clinical aspects. In: Sandler J, editor. Projection, identification, projective identification, p. 93-116. Madison, CT: Int. Univ. Press, 1987.
Kernberg O(1987)。投射和投射识别:发展和临床方面。在:Sandler J,编辑。投射,识别,投射识别,第 93-116 页。麦迪逊,康涅狄格州:国际大学出版社,1987 年。
Klein M (1929). Personification in the play of children. In: Contributions to psycho-analysis, 19211945, p. 215-26. London: Hogarth Press, 1950.
克莱因 M(1929 年)。儿童游戏中的拟人化。在:精神分析的贡献,1921-1945 年,第 215-26 页。伦敦:霍加斯出版社,1950 年。
Klein M (1946). Notes on some schizoid mechanisms. In: Klein M, Heimann P, Isaacs S, Riviere J, editors. Developments in psycho-analysis, p. 292-320. London: Hogarth Press, 1952.
克莱因 M(1946 年)。一些分裂机制的注释。在:克莱因 M,海曼 P,艾萨克斯 S,里维埃尔 J,编辑。精神分析发展,第 292-320 页。伦敦:霍加斯出版社,1952 年。
Klein M (1955). On identification. In: Klein M, Heimann P, Money-Kyrle RE. New directions in psycho-analysis: The significance of infant conflict in the pattern of adult behaviour, p. 30945. London: Tavistock.
克莱因 M(1955 年)。关于认同。在:克莱因 M,海曼 P,蒙尼-柯尔尔 RE。精神分析的新方向:婴儿冲突在成人行为模式中的意义,第 30945 页。伦敦:塔维斯托克。
Kristeva J (1989). Black sun: Depression and melancholia. New York, NY: Columbia Univ. Press. .
克里斯特娃 J(1989 年)。黑太阳:抑郁症与忧郁。纽约,哥伦比亚大学出版社。
Llinás RR (2001). I of the Vortex: From neurons to self. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 302 p.
Llinás RR(2001 年)。《漩涡之我:从神经元到自我》。剑桥,马萨诸塞州:麻省理工学院出版社。302 页。
Mason AA (1994). A psychoanalyst looks at a hypnotist: A study of folie à deux. Psychoanal Q 63:641-79.
梅森 AA(1994 年)。精神分析师看待催眠师:一项关于共病的研究。精神分析季刊 63:641-79。
Meltzer DW (1966). The relation of anal masturbation to projective identification. Int J Psychoanal 47:335-42.
Meltzer DW(1966 年)。肛门自慰与投射认同的关系。国际精神分析杂志 47:335-42。
Meltzer DW (1992). The claustrum: An investigation of claustrophobic phenomena. Strath Tay: Clunie. .
梅尔策(1992 年)。隔间:对幽闭恐怖现象的调查。斯特拉斯泰:克卢尼。
Modell AH (1980). Affects and their non-communication. Int J Psychoanal 61:259-67.
模型 AH(1980 年)。影响及其非沟通。国际精神分析杂志 61:259-67。
Money-Kyrle RE (1956). Normal counter-transference and some of its deviations. Int J Psychoanal .
Money-Kyrle RE(1956 年)。正常的对移情及其一些偏差。国际精神分析杂志
Novick J, Kelly K (1970). Projection and externalization. Psychoanal Study Child 25:69-95.
诺维克 J,凯利 K(1970 年)。投射和外化。精神分析研究儿童 25:69-95。
Ogden TH (1982). Projective identification and psychotherapeutic technique. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. 236 p.
奥格登 TH(1982 年)。投射认同与心理治疗技术。纽约,纽约州:杰森·阿伦森。236 页。
Ogden TH (1994a). The analytic third: Working with intersubjective clinical facts. Int J Psychoanal
奥格登 TH(1994a)。分析第三:处理主观临床事实。国际精神分析杂志
Ogden TH (1994b). The concept of interpretive action. Psychoanal Q 63:219-45.
奥格登 TH(1994b)。解释性行动的概念。精神分析季刊 63:219-45。
Racker H (1968). Transference and counter-transference. London: Hogarth. 203 p.
Racker H(1968 年)。移情和反移情。伦敦:霍加斯。203 页。
Rosenfeld H (1971). Contribution to the psychopathology of psychotic states: The importance of projective identification in the ego structure and the object relations of the psychotic patient. In: Doucet P, Laurin C, editors. Problems of psychosis, p. 115-28. Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.
罗森菲尔德 H(1971 年)。对精神病态的心理病理学贡献:投射认同在精神病患者自我结构和客体关系中的重要性。在:杜塞特 P,劳林 C,编辑。精神病问题,第 115-28 页。阿姆斯特丹:艾克斯塞普塔医学。
Sandler J (1976). Countertransference and role responsiveness. Int Rev Psychoanal 3:43-7.
桑德勒 J(1976 年)。反移情和角色响应。国际精神分析评论 3:43-7。
Schore A (2003). Affect regulation and the repair of the self. New York, NY: WW Norton. 363 p.
Schore A (2003). 情感调节与自我修复. 纽约,纽约州: WW Norton. 363 页。
Seligman S (1993). Integrating Kleinian theory and intersubjective infant research: Observing projective identification. Psychoanal Dialog 9:129-59.
Seligman S(1993 年)。整合克莱因理论和互为主体婴儿研究:观察投射认同。精神分析对话 9:129-59。
Seligman SS (1994). Applying psychoanalysis in an unconventional context: Adapting infantparent psychotherapy to a changing population. Psychoanal Study Child 49:481-500.
Seligman SS(1994 年)。在非传统背景中应用精神分析:将婴儿-父母心理治疗调整到不断变化的人群。《儿童精神分析研究》49:481-500。
Sodré I (2004). Who's who? Notes on pathological identifications, In: Hargreaves E, Varchevker A, editors. In pursuit of psychic change: The Betty Joseph workshop, p. 53-64. Hove: BrunnerRoutledge.
Sodré I(2004)。谁是谁?关于病理鉴定的注释,见:Hargreaves E,Varchevker A,编辑。追求心理变化:贝蒂·约瑟夫研讨会,第 53-64 页。霍夫:布鲁纳·劳特利奇。
Spillius EB (1988). General introduction. In: Spillius EB, editor. Melanie Klein today: Developments in theory and practice, Vol 1: Mainly theory, p. 1-7. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Spillius EB(1988 年)。总论。在:Spillius EB,编辑。梅兰妮·克莱因今日:理论与实践的发展,第 1 卷:主要是理论,第 1-7 页。伦敦和纽约:Routledge。
Spillius EB (1992). Clinical experiences of projective identification. In: Anderson R, editor. Clinical lectures on Klein and Bion, p. 59-73. London and New York, NY: Routledge.
Spillius EB(1992 年)。投射认同的临床经验。在:Anderson R,编辑。Klein 和 Bion 的临床讲座,第 59-73 页。伦敦和纽约,纽约州:Routledge。
Stern DN (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy and everyday life. New York, NY: WW Norton.
斯特恩 DN(2004 年)。心理治疗和日常生活中的当下时刻。纽约,纽约州:WW 诺顿。

  1. Melanie Klein's theory is that patients have an omnipotent phantasy and the way one can verbalise that phantasy is that the patient feels that he can split off certain unpleasant and unwanted feelings and can put them in the analyst. I am not sure, from the practice of analysis, that it is only an omnipotent phantasy ... I have felt ... that when the patient appears to be engaged on a projective identification it can make me feel persecuted ... If this is correct it is still possible to keep the theory of an omnipotent phantasy, but at the same time we might consider whether there is not some other theory which would explain what the patient does to the analyst which makes the analyst feel like that (1973, pp. 105-6, my italics).
    梅兰妮·克莱因的理论是,患者拥有一种全能的幻想,可以用言语表达这种幻想的方式是,患者觉得自己可以将某些不愉快和不想要的感觉分离出来,并将它们放在分析师身上。我不确定,从分析实践来看,这是否仅仅是一种全能的幻想...我曾经感觉到...当患者似乎在进行投射性认同时,会让我感到受到迫害...如果这是正确的,仍然可以保持全能幻想的理论,但同时我们可能要考虑是否有其他理论可以解释患者对分析师的行为,使分析师感到如此(1973 年,第 105-6 页,我加重了字体)。
  2. Thus, unlike Klein, we [modern London Kleinians] are now explicitly prepared to use our own feelings as a source of information about what the patient is doing, though with an awareness that we may get it wrong, that the process of understanding our response to the patient imposes a constant need for psychic work by the analyst ... and that confusing one's own feelings with the patient's is always a hazard ... The analyst's aim is to allow himself
  3. A distinction must be drawn between the projective mode of thought involved in projective identification and that in projection as an independent process. In the former, the projector subjectively experiences feelings of oneness with the recipient with regard to the expelled feeling, idea, or self-representation. By contrast, in projection the aspect of the self that is in fantasy expelled is disavowed and attributed to the recipient (1982, p. 34).
    在投射认同中涉及的投射思维模式与作为独立过程的投射之间必须区分开来。在前者中,投射者主观地体验与接受者在被排斥的情感、想法或自我表现方面的一体感。相比之下,在投射中,被排斥的自我的方面被否认并归因于接受者(1982 年,第 34 页)。