拉康讨论班一中“狼孩”个案的摘译(欢迎大家指正)

双臂大黑天

来自: 双臂大黑天(朴素的生活与遥远的梦想)
2012-03-14 17:22:47

×
加入小组后即可参加投票
  • 王彻

    王彻 (双重死亡=?) 大他者 2012-03-15 02:51:56

    ……看到这个就让人很伤怀啊,当初霍老师也是花了大概两年时间带着翻译这本讨论班,结果没人收全扯皮了。

  • 王彻

    王彻 (双重死亡=?) 大他者 2012-03-15 03:20:32

    ……看到最后,原来这不是拉康自己做的。文章很长,辛苦了,在我看来只有几个错别字的问题,好得很。

  • Herr.Nos

    Herr.Nos (放弃你的签名吧!) 组长 2012-03-15 11:41:27

    这个狼孩个案在法国的精神分析圈子里可是出了名的,记得我最早在S1当中读到的时候也是着实被震撼了一把。这个小小的萝卜头儿,简直可以说是悲剧的化身,一生出来就没有父亲,只有一个偏执狂的母亲,后来还被母亲给遗弃了。可怜的娃,不到一岁就因为急性水肿和营养不良而两度住院,做个乳突窦手术还没有麻药打,四岁前频繁更换了25次住处。说到这里,稍微有点同情心的人自然就要伤怀了。不过话说回来,LEFORT说罗伯特没有象征功能,想象功能更差,拉康倒是一语中的,纠正说他至少还有两个词。我当时就想,人家LEFORT用个对象关系就可以做到重建想象的程度,换作中国的分析家,还不知道要怎么来处理这类的个案呢。

  • Herr.Nos

    Herr.Nos (放弃你的签名吧!) 组长 2012-03-15 11:56:12

    ……看到最后,原来这不是拉康自己做的。文章很长,辛苦了,在我看来只有几个错别字的问题,好得 ……看到最后,原来这不是拉康自己做的。文章很长,辛苦了,在我看来只有几个错别字的问题,好得很。 ... 王彻

    难道在你看来就只有几个错别字的问题吗?

  • Herr.Nos

    Herr.Nos (放弃你的签名吧!) 组长 2012-03-15 12:03:15

    我在网上找来了LEFORT当初给这个个案的评注,还有时隔30年之后的重新评论。 想要进一步了解这个CASE的同学可以看看。 The First Three Lessons of the Treatment of the Wolf Child • .........Rosine and Robert Lefort The case of the so-called Wolf Child is now famous in French psychoanalytic literature. Presented by Rosine Lefort at Jacques Lacan's seminar in 1954, it appears in his first Seminar Book I, Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-1954. Robert, the Wolf Child, born in March 1948, was referred to Rosine Lefort at Christmas, 1951. After eight sessions of "observation", the treatment commenced on 15 January 1952. Here we publish the notes on the first three sessions as they were written at the lime. They are followed by a commentary written by Rosine and Robert Lefort in 1983 after working in a cartel with Eric Laurent, Jacques-Alain Miller and Judith Miller. Notes on the case (1952) Tuesday 15 January, 5 p.m. This morning, when I was looking for Maryse, Robert claimed most of my attention, searching for pencils and biscuits, and then leaving two pots on my knees. He cried when I took Maryse away. This evening I found him on the potty. He got up as soon as I saw him and followed me. No reaction in front of the staircase, so I look him to the consulting room. His behavior was extremely agitated, almost like he was when he arrived at the lazaret. He has the same obsession of the first days', he cannot bear an open door. Three limes in the course of the session he slammed the door when it was not closed properly or went to verify that it was in fact closed. Apart from his usual behavior-piling things up on lop of me and shutting other things away in boxes, known as Noah's arks here - the new salient traits are: - He put the pot on my knees. - He took off his pants, which he had put back on incorrectly, and threw them into the corner. - He gave the biscuits to me without trying them. - His attitude towards the feeding bottle and water. - He jumped up and down on the spot, crying out, very agitated. He discovered the feeding bottle, surprise, fell it, look it, put it down again and blew on it He came back to it frequently, and each lime he kept still for a few seconds, with the bottle in his hand, without crying out and with his face expressionless for a brief lime. He ended up taking away everything that was on the table around the bottle, which he left on its own. Before deciding to take away everything from around the bottle, he noticed the water bowl. Very agitated, he rushed to it, grabbed it by the edge to turn it upside down. But he dropped it before the water was poured out, as if he were scared. The impact of the bowl against the floor made the water squirt. Laughing and crying, he looked at the pool of water; scared, he moved back, and then came over to the other side of my knees to look at the water, separated from it and protected by my knees. He then started to remove the things from around the bottle. But he heard a nurse going into the next room and, with the feeding bottle in his hand, he ran to open the door. He saw the nurse and offered her the bottle, saying, Bois or Vois ("Drink" or "Look") to her, quickly closed the door, put the bottle back on the table and went to the sandbox. He pointed it out to me, but he did not touch anything. He went back to finish clearing the table around the bottle, and when he had finished he said, "Good-bye" to me and went out. He returned, took the Noah's ark and look it with him to the crèche. Since the ark is a toy that belongs in the consulting room, I asked the nurse to get it back from him later on, but to leave him the wooden animals contained in the box. When she did this, there were roars from Robert. Because after a quarter of an hour there was no sign he was calming down, I went to see him. He gradually calmed down while silting on my knee, grabbed the pencil and paper from my pocket and returned lo the crèche after quietening down. He was in a sweat and his face was so strained and tense that I had to wait until he was a bit more relaxed (even after he stopped screaming) to take him back. Wednesday 16 January, 6 p.m. When I took Maryse to the canteen, Robert clung to me and became very agitated. I told him that I would be coming back to fetch him. His face was awfully tense. He went out in front of me and quickly moved in the direction of the consulting room. He was carrying a pair of celluloid scissors. He went to the door of the crèche; but as I told him that we were going upstairs, like yesterday, he moved quickly to the bottom of the staircase. He tried to climb up, but as he was not able to, turned towards me and I helped him up. During the climb, some violent screams. Once upstairs, he rushed into the room, came out, returned to the room, verified that I was there and closed the door. Like yesterday, he went to the bottle, lifted it up, blew on it, showed it to me, tense and crying, and put it back down so that it almost fell over. He was scared; he took the bottle and put it back gently and showed me that it was straight. He grabbed the baby doll, pulled at its jumper, held it out for me, then laid two empty boxes down on my knees before putting the baby doll on top. He approached the bottle, but before daring to take it he cleared the space around it; then he placed it on the floor, close to me, looked at it, stood motionless for a few seconds, and put it back on the table. He bent down to pick up a cube and while gelling up again he bumped against the table. The bottle fell, squirting milk on the table and floor. He was very scared; he stood the bottle up again and furtively wiped the stains on the table with his hand, restless. He went to fetch the celluloid scissors, put them in a glass and shook them, left them there and put both things inside an empty box which he had placed on my knees at the beginning. He went 10 the sand, touched it, moved back as if he were scared and then grabbed a plate as a spade. But he did not do anything with it. He look the glass again, leaving the scissors to one side, used the glass as a spade and tipped the sand out onto the spot he had been digging in. Very agitated. On several occasions he checked the door was properly shut, while screaming violently as if he were shouting abuse. He rushed to the baby doll, hit it on the bottom, threw it back into the cradle. Very restless, he tried to wipe the milk stains off the floor with his hand. Then he randomly stacked up toys in the ark, shouted, "Good-bye" at me and left. During the lime I was getting rid of the things he had put on my knees he had reached the first steps of the stairs, and I heard a heartrending, pathetic call: "Mummy, Mummy!" I went to him, look him in my arms and descended the stairs. Twice, the same heartrending call uttered in a fairly low voice, contrary to every other form of verbal expression from Robert. He returned to the canteen without difficulty. Like yesterday, today's session lasted about fifteen minutes, and it was he who decided on the duration. Behavior perhaps even more agitated than yesterday. His face very tense and his eyes even more so; he did not look good at all. Like yesterday, he jumped up and down on the spot, ending up crouching. He would very often put his hand on his head, as would an adult whose head was about to explode under the pressure of his obsessions. In contrast, during his agitation after the bottle fell, he placed his hand on his pants several times, then jumped in the air and crouched for a second. In the light of the succession of acts or gestures, one would have to say that everything is swamped by a terrible agitation which destroys any possible variation of emotion from one act to another, with the exception, perhaps, and very briefly, of the bottle. It all seems to be incoherent, but I do not think that this is so. Thursday 17 January, 6 p.m. Because of Maryse, whom I don't take today, the mothercraft brought Robert into the corridor. He rushed towards me, screamed once only, and held out his arms to me. While we were climbing the stairs, he held me tightly and caressed my face, purring with satisfaction. He entered the room very quickly. He was considerably less agitated today. His activities were less scattered, more organized. It was I who after half an hour invited him to go down for dinner. He took the bottle, blew on it, put it back in its place and held it for a while to be sure it was stable. Put two empty boxes on my knees. Took the baby doll in the cradle, offered it to me and cried out, "Baby!", but he did not come close; then he threw it violently into the cradle. I said to him that he was not happy with the babies. He looked at me and said, "No!" energetically. He would not give me the baby doll today. He took the glass and put some toys on my knees before filling the glass with sand and slowly tipping it out (without either evident jouissance or aggressiveness). He wiped it with his smock and placed it on my knees after putting a cube inside it. This was followed by a scene of violence in which he threw objects into the cradle. He piled the ark and toys up on my knees; the bottle remained behind. He took it, blew on it and, with his arm extended, carried it towards the sandbox. Incomprehensible screams, and he put the bottle back on the table. He was not able to make it steady; when he saw that it was going to fall, he drew back. He picked it up from the floor, ran his hand over it as if there were a stain (though no milk was spilt), tried to place it back on the table. But as he could not manage to hold it steady, he placed it back on the floor. Furtively, he wiped the imaginary stain once more. Noticed that when bringing the bottle back from the sand, an unconscious gesture of tipping it horizontally towards me, very quickly. Went and checked that the door was properly shut. Took some of the things on my knees back and placed them on the floor, then noticed the paper in my pocket, piled everything up again, took my paper and pencil, put the paper back in its place. He broke the lead of the pencil with his teeth, threw away the lead aggressively and put the pencil on the pile. Went and opened the door, looked to see if there was anyone behind it and closed it again; spread out the pile, put the things back in a pile again and went to play with the electric switch. Firstly switched it off and on very quickly, uninterruptedly; then twice piled new things up on top of me and between each operation went to switch the button on and off several times in a row. The time in darkness became quite long. I told him that he saw, did not see anymore and that everything remained there all the time. Went to the sandbox, put some sand in a paper bag, emptied the bag and then tore it to pieces. Took a piece of wrapping paper that was on the table, covered all the things on me with it, took the paper again, crumpled it, went and threw it outside and closed the door carefully. Took the bottle lying on the floor and, keeping it in his hand, went to switch the light off. A brief period of darkness, and quickly put the bottle back on the floor. I told him that he did not want to see that he had taken the bottle, even though he very much wanted it, but was also scared of it. Went to the sand. Found a piece of biscuit in the sand, bit a comer off it, and, very quickly, went and threw it outside, and carefully closed the door. I took him downstairs with the ark which he wanted to carry. He was considerably less agitated. There were brief periods of indecision about what he would do, and when they lasted too long, he jumped in the air once, crouching down as he dropped, and then acted. Less agitated tension in his gestures, anxiety that could be perceived a little at times. No violent laughing; less screams. Tense face but less unstable with changes of expression. Said "Mummy!" several times while going down the stairs, less heartrending than yesterday in the sense that yesterday I had felt that it was addressed to an absence while today it was in part addressed to me. Friday 18 January A nurse told me that yesterday evening, after being put to bed, Robert tried to cut his penis with a pair of celluloid scissors. Panic-stricken, Christiane said to him, "You're going to hurt yourself, and Maryse, seated on the floor, looked on, sucking her thumb. The occupants of this seniors room are himself, Maryse, Christiane and Yolande. Commentary (1983) The psychoanalyst distinguishes, following Lacan, between phallic jouissance, Other jouissance and jouissance of the Other. French uses the one word. At a meeting with Spanish colleagues, Rithée Cevasco informed us - to our delight - that the Spanish language has two terms: el goce, which designates phallic jouissance, and el gozo, mystic jouissance, of which there has been no shortage of representatives in Spanish history over the last three centuries. Mystic jouissance, jouissance of God, jouissance of the Other-in Spanish, the category is well defined, and nevertheless the jouissance of a Saint John of the Cross cannot in any way be assimilated to the kind of jouissance that Schreber experienced, which is wholly due to foreclosure (Verwerfung). The Wolf Child is from the beginning open to the dimension of jouissance but, moreover, he is open at the level of a phallic representative, the bottle, only to find himself, after a total failure, in the abyss of jouissance of the Other, where the necessity for the abolition of all phallicity emerges: this is the mutilation he inflicts upon himself of the representative of the phallus in the shape of an organ, his penis. In the commentary on these first three sessions that we presented at the 1981 Autumn Meeting of the École de la Cause freudienne, we insisted on the holes that Robert's structure evidently presents, without pointing out the positive side of his relation with speech which here appears: - in the place that he gives to the Other from the very beginning of his treatment, - by means of the introduction of that privileged object, the bottle, bound to the Other and to the Other's word. The bottle, an oral object par excellence, in this case loses its oral character and comes almost exclusively to represent-so as to find one's bearings, one could say-a phallic object. Indeed, it appears that what the bottle truly represents is the organ, Robert's penis-and this will be the case for a long time to come. Moreover, it is precisely the organ, which is entirely real, that Robert wants to deprive himself of, after his desire to have it has been enunciated for him. The Other without object As far as the Other is concerned at the beginning of this treatment, it is remarkable that the analyst is immediately in a place different from the one she occupied during the period of observation. At that time Robert was the Other when he announced himself with his strident cry, "Madam!" This signifier fell, and the analyst took the place of the Other in the real. Everything thai Robert would subsequently express was related to this Other who had become external to him. On 16 January, when, having fled from the session and facing the void from the top of the staircase, he utters, "Mummy, Mummy!" for the first lime, in a pathetic call, he expresses-it could not be said more clearly-the disappearance of the primordial Other for him, that is, the real, longstanding absence of his mother. On 17 January he attempts to re-establish, in the transference, contact with the Other, since on going upstairs for his session he huddles up against Rosine, he caresses her face, while purring with satisfaction, and on returning downstairs after the session he says, "Mummy!" several times, on this occasion addressing his call in part to the analyst. Engaging in the treatment was, therefore, enough for Robert (who somehow had included the Other in himself through being this Other, in so far as his cry "Madam!" did not receive a response that would have transformed it into an appeal) to find again an appeal that he had surely known before, even if the relation with his mother, a paranoic who used to starve him, had been far from satisfactory. It is this appeal, "Mummy!", that founds for Robert a minimal symbolisation of the primordial Other constituted by the mother. But he at first addresses it to the void and then utters it while in Rosine's arms. He will not call Rosine "Mummy" again, as if that appeal remained without future in the absence of the symbolic which renders futile what this appeal actually is: an appeal to the paternal metaphor. Everything is in place, then, in such a way that the Other is not the vehicle of this metaphor, is not barred and remains without a beyond, in the real. With this status the Other is not the vehicle of the object, either - the bottle, isolated by Robert from the other objects, and from Rosine as much as from himself. It is a representative of the penis, which does not attain the dimension of a symbolic metaphor and has no access to the status of the signifier of lack as Vorstellungsrepräsentanz. It remains a scopic, materialized object, and its fall is identical to the loss of the penis, as Robert exhibits by putting his hand on his sexual organ while he crouches, as the bottle falls or almost falls. Castration in the Real It is between the Other and the object that remain separated from one another that, at the beginning of the treatment, Robert's castration will be played out. But which castration? In no way is this the castration that results from an Oedipus complex where the subject, symbolically fastened down, can function in the Held of the Other's desire. While we are not dealing with such a structure, nonetheless we cannot avoid evoking castration in the real. which would then realize the ). We must then deal with Schema R - but a Schema R whose geometrical points have changed as a function of the absence of the symbolic). [1] What, then, is the place of (p and what is the reason for its cut in the real? Normally, the cut concerns the subject who is promoted by it on the basis of the structure of the body's surface defined by a Moebius strip (the surface R being its flattening down: i I e M) with that which falls out: the objet a. Robert does not correspond to such a structure of the body, but the signifier that dwells in him nevertheless imposes upon him a cut in the real, a real that covers the two triangles of Schema R (MIO and MIS), since the symbolic is absent there. It is therefore a real which is different from that at the end of the chain of symbolic identification. Without the symbolic, the signifier remains in the real; it is the redoubling of the real. This appears clearly in the field R of Schema I: "creatures of speech", "speech in which the created is maintained". [2] It is in the "relation to the signifier that this drama (of madness] is situated. [3] The consequences are as follows: - On the side of the signifier, the ego ideal takes the place of the Other (see Schema I); what the Other utters is that which it is in the real-it speaks and it commands. This is the psychotic's superego, - On the side of the image, the object of need and, subsequently, the object of desire cannot be taken from the Other without endangering the Other, without his existence being put in question. In the real, without the symbolic, the cut can no longer pass between the object and the Other, there can be no holes in the Other. Conflict arises between taking the object and killing the Other or making oneself in the image of the Other, from which the feminine superego of the psychotic derives. In fact, everything is due to the Other: - the breast which is no longer in the subject, - the excrement, which is the model of the price to be paid to the Other in the real, - the look, which in its fixity is made into a wall, - the voice, which is only but a cry, bellowing, on the side of the Other without appeal. The Other of Jouissance As far as the penis is concerned, in the absence of I and S it cannot attain the status of signifier of lack. It is a real organ whose possession by the subject is equivalent lo depriving the Other of it, and this is impossible. It remains for the psychotic to deprive himself of the penis for the Other, while realizing the image of the primordial feminine Other: the subject re- introduces the elision of the phallus, Lacan writes, "in order to resolve it, into the mortifying gap of the minor-stage". [4] The penis is therefore in the place at which its function is identical to the other objects, hence its status which can be assimilated to the objet a except that it cannot be the cause of a desire, but jouissance clings to it with evident predilection: it is a pole of attraction for infantile masturbation. Jouissance for the sake of whom, though? For the sake of the Other, to such an extent that the subject no longer manifests any such jouissance for himself, as is apparently the case with Robert. It is not the same in the case of Schreber. but apart from the involuntary emissions that he had at the beginning, Schreber is careful not to write anything down about his compulsive masturbation. The breast or the bottle were for the sake of the Other; so is the penis, also. If the first must not be sampled, the second must not be owned: this is the price of the Other through jouissance. It remains for the psychotic to take the place of this object of the Other's jouissance for the Other to exist, following the model in which a subject turns himself into the phallus, the object of the Other's desire, but in registers other than the real. He can also turn himself into the Other in order to have a portion of jouissance... by castrating himself. This is the same oscillation that we find in Schreber between becoming the object of the Other's jouissance and being the feminine Other, both states being run together. Such is the case of his initial fantasy: "It really must be rather pleasant (to be a woman succumbing to intercourse). [5] But while this is a fantasy according to Lacan's formula ( <> a), which is an essential component of the structure and as such is part of the real of the subject, it is certainly not the real of Schema R but that of Schema I, without an Other other than that of jouissance. In the first case, the fantasy submerges the subject in an imaginary (un imaginaire) which generates pleasure. Now, it is not pleasure that Schreber encounters but, after initial horror, a flood of jouissance, the jouissance of God: God demands a constant stale of jouissance... It is therefore my duty to offer him this jouissance... And if in doing so a bit of sensual jouissance falls to me in return, I feel justified in accepting it as a small compensation for the excessive suffering and privation that have been my lot for so many years... The signifier becomes unleashed and there is jouissance (ça jouit), but there is a double risk: that God will withdraw from him if Schreber is not thinking of something, or that God will be threatened in his existence if Schreber attracts him to the point of occupying his place. Death is at stake - his own and God's. The death of the body-from jouissance to beatitude. God has knowledge only of corpses and he can, after having obtained his jouissance from Schreber, "leave him in the lurch", "forsake him", unless the Other and he form a doublet of leprous corpses. The () in psychosis is of the order of the real; when every phallic representative of "the being of the living", every object, has withdrawn, has been envaginated into the real and is no longer there between the subject and the Other. The superego can occupy the entire place there, since the signifying murmur of the lost voices inscribes a law on the Tables, which is not among the laws of speech. Notes: [1] See Schema R in Jacques Lacan, "On a question preliminary to all possible treatment of psychosis", in Écrits: A Selection (London: Tavistock, 1977), 197. [2] See "Question", 212. [3] "Question", 214. [4] "Question". 211. [5] Daniel Paul Schreber, Memoirs of My Nervous Illness, I. Macalpine and R. A. Hunter (trans.), (London: W. M. Dawson & Sons, 1955).

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-03-15 17:25:54

    From the point of view of height and weight, he was in very good shape, except for a chronic bilateral otorrhea. From the standpoint of motor activity, he had a swinging gait, extreme lack of coordination in his movements, a constant hyperagitation. From the point of view of language, complete absence of coordinated speech, frequent screams, guttural and discordant laughter. He yelled the only two words he knew -Miss! and wolfl This word, wolf!, he repeated throughout the day, so I nicknamed him the wolf-child, because that really was the image he had of himself. 黑天 身高体重没大问题,只是有双侧耳漏。身体运动方面,走路摇摆缺乏协调性。语言方面,话语协调性丧失,频繁的叫喊,怪笑。他只会喊两个字:母亲和狼。我给他起名叫狼孩。 雄伯 从高度跟体重的观点而言,他处于良好的状况,除了有一个慢性的双侧耳漏。从动力活动的观点而言,他走路的姿态有点摇摆,动作方面,极端地缺乏协调,不断地会有激动喊叫。从语言的观点而言,他的讲话完全缺乏调和性,频繁地尖叫,咯咯叫,及胡乱的笑声。他仅是喊叫他知道的两个字:「小姐!狼!」。「狼!」这个字,他重复一整天,所以,我给他取个绰号「狼的小孩」。因为那确实是他对自己建构的形象。 Lately, I have had to confront him with something real. I was away for a year, and I returned eight months pregnant. He saw me pregnant. He started playing with fantasies of the destruction of this child, 黑天: 最后一个阶段,我使他面对现实。我因为怀孕离开了8个,他看见我的大肚子。他幻想毁掉这个孩子。 雄伯 最近,我一直不得不要让他面对某件现实的事情。我离开一年,回来时,已怀孕八个月。他看见我怀孕。他开始玩搞各种毁灭这个小孩的幻想。 I disappeared for the birth. While I was away, my husband took him into treatment, and he acted out the destruction of this child. When I returned, he saw me thin, and childless. So he was convinced that his fantasies had become reality, that he had killed the child, and hence that I was going to kill him. 黑天 我丈夫接替我治疗。当我回来时,他发觉我瘦了,肚子里没有孩子,他就相信他的幻想实现了,他杀死了孩子,因此我将会杀死他。 雄伯 我因为生育小孩离开。当我不在时,我的丈夫接替对于他的治疗。他扮演出毁灭这个小孩的幻想。 当我回来时,他看到我身体消瘦,小孩没有了。所以他相信,他的各种幻想已经成为现实。他已经杀死这个小孩。因此,我将会杀他。 He has been extremely disturbed in the last fortnight, up until the day when he was able to tell me about it. Then and there, 1 confronted him with reality. 1 brought him my daughter, in such a way that he would now be able to make the break. His level of agitation subsided instantly, and the next day, when 1 had him for a session, he started at last to demonstrate some jealousy. He was becoming attached to something living and not to death, 黑天 在两周中,他都很不安,有一天他告诉了我。有一天我把我的女儿带来,让他面对现实。他的躁动立刻下降,第二天会谈中他表现出嫉妒。他依恋一些活的东西而不再是死物。 雄伯 过去两周来,他情绪极端地受到困乱,一直到他能够告诉我有关那件事情的那一天。就在当时当场,我让他面对现实界。我将我的女儿带来,以这样一种方式,他现在能够跟他的幻想做一个切割。他的激动的程度马上平息下来。第二天,当我跟他做分析谘商时,他终于展现对于小孩的某种妒忌心。他的情感渐渐依附某个活生生的人,而不是死的东西。 This child had always remained at the stage in which fantasies are realities. That is what explains why his fantasies of intra-uterine form had been reality in the treatment, so that he could perform an astonishing construction. If he had gone past this stage, 1 wouldn't have been able to have secured this construction of himself, 雄伯译 这个小孩总是停留在幻想就是现实的阶段。那就是解释为什么子宫内部的各种幻想,在治疗中一直被当成现实。这样,他才能从事令人吃惊的自我建构。假如他已经跨越过这个阶段,我本来会没有办法获得他对自己的建构。 As I was saying yesterday, I had the impression that this child had sunk under the real that at the beginning of the treatment there was no symbolic function in him, still less an imaginary function, 黑天 给我的印象是这个孩子已沉入现实,但在治疗初,他没有符号的功能和想象的功能。 雄伯 如同我昨天所说的,我获得这样的印象: 这个小孩已经沉陷到实在界底下。在治疗的开始,在他身上,没有符号象征界的功能,尤其没有一种想象界的功能。 Lacan:But he did have two words. 黑天 拉康:但是他仍然有两个词。 雄伯 拉康: 但是他确实讲出(小姐及狼)两个字词。

  • 双臂大黑天

    双臂大黑天 (朴素的生活与遥远的梦想) 楼主 2012-03-15 20:11:12

    感谢雄伯的指正,感谢新雨的评论与提供的此个案的补充资料,很重要,希望有机会能讨论一些这一著名个案。

  • 烧饼夹壁虎

    烧饼夹壁虎 (吃我吃我~) 2012-03-21 17:18:25

    译的好

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-21 22:13:04

    2012-03-14 17:22:47 来自: 双臂大黑天(想知道吗?到博物院来看我) 此个案摘译自1953-54拉冈讨论班一,第八节(1954年3月10日):狼!狼!第1部分:罗贝尔的个案。 MME LEFORT: Robert was born on 4 March 1948. His past history has been reconstituted with some difficulty, and it is in large part owing to the material brought up in sessions that it has been possible to learn of the traumas he suffered. 勒福尔•罗西纳:小男孩叫罗贝尔,1948年出生。 雄伯译 勒福尔•罗西纳:罗勃出生于1948年。他的过往历史曾经非常困难地被重新建构,主要部分是根据在研讨会中被提出的材料。所谓我们可能知道他所遭遇的创伤。 His father is not known. His mother is presently confined as a paranoiac. She kept him with her up to the age of five months, moving from house to house. She neglected his essential needs, to the point of forgetting to feed him. She had to be continually reminded to care for her child: washing, dressing, feeding. We have established that this child was so neglected as to suffer from hunger. He had to be hospitalised at the age of five mqnths in an acute state of hypertrophy and wasting. 大黑天 不知道他父亲是谁。母亲由于是个妄想狂(病人)现在被拘禁起来(关在精神病院)。母亲照顾小罗贝尔到他5个月大,她从一个屋子到另一个屋子,走来走去。她忽略对孩子最基本的照看,直至忘记喂他。人们不得不不停的提醒她要照看孩子:洗漱、喂养。这个孩子忍受着饥饿。他5个月大的时候不得不住进医院,由于营养不良。 雄伯译 不知道他父亲是谁。母亲由于是个妄想狂(病人)现在被拘禁起来(关在精神病院)。母亲照顾小罗贝尔到他5个月大,她从一个屋子到另一个屋子,走来走去。她忽略对孩子最基本的照看,直至忘记喂他。人们不得不不停的提醒她要照看孩子:洗漱、穿衣,喂养。我们已经证明,这个这个孩子如此地受到忽视,以致遭受着饥饿的痛苦。他5个月大的时候,不得不被送进医院,由于发育不良及瘦骨嶙峋。 Scarcely had he been hospitalised when he suffered a bilateral otitis which necessitated a double mastoidectomy. He was then sent to Paul Parquet,whose strict prophylactic practice is well known. There, he was isolated, and fed on a drip on account of his anorexia. He came out at nine months, and was returned almost by force to his mother. Nothing is known of the two months he then spent with her. We pick up his scent again after his hospitalisation at eleven months, when he was again in a state of acute wasting. He was definitively and legally abandoned five months later without having seen his mother again. 大黑天 在他刚住院的时候,他就得了双侧耳炎,必须做一个双侧切除术(乳突凿开术,乳突切除术)。随后他被送到了Paul PARQUET,巴黎城郊纽利的一所儿童医院。 他被隔离起来,看不到其它的孩子,通过一根导管喂食。9个月大时出院了,并且几乎是强制的被送回到他母亲那儿。我们不知道他和他母亲待在一起的两个月发生了什么。然后,在他十一月大的时候,他又被送进医院,仍然是由于营养不良。五个月后,他母亲最终依法放弃了对他的抚养权,此后他再也没见过他母亲。 雄伯订正 在他刚住院的时候,他就得了双侧耳炎,必须做一个双侧切除术(乳突凿开术,乳突切除术)。随后他被送到了Paul PARQUET,巴黎城郊纽利的一家以严格隔离闻名的医院。 在那里,他被隔离起来,并且被强迫用导管喂食,因为他的厌食症。9个月大时,他出院了,并且几乎是强制的被送回到他母亲那儿。我们不知道他和他母亲待在一起的两个月发生了什么。然后,我们再次获知他的讯息,在他十一月大的时候,他又被送进医院。他仍然是处于营养不良及瘦骨嶙峋的状态。五个月后,他明确而且依法地被弃养,因为他的母亲从此没有再被看见。

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-21 22:31:41

    From that time up to the age of three years and nine months, this child underwent changes of residence twenty-five times, passing through institutions for children or hospitals, without ever being placed in a foster home, properly speaking. These hospitalisations were made necessary by childhood illnesses, by an adenoidectomy, by the neurological ventriculographic, electro-encephalographic examinations he was given - result: normal Health and medical evaluations were made indicating profound somatic disturbances, and then, the somatic ones having been improved upon, psychological deterioration. The last evaluation, at Denfert, when Robert was three and a half, suggested that he be confined, which could only have been definitive, on account of an unclearly defined para-psychotic state. GeselVs test gave an IQ. of 43. 大黑天 到他3岁9个月大为止,他所在的地方一共换了25次,从一个儿童机构到另一个或从一个医院到另一个,从没有在一个寄养家庭中待过。经过一系列检查,人们给予他一个诊断结果:正常。身体的紊乱好了以后,是心理的损害。当他三岁半的时候,最终的评估是他需要被拘禁(收进精神病院),一个类精神病状态不能完全确定,智商43。. 雄伯订正 从那时,到他3岁9个月大为止,他更换所居住的地方,一共换了25次,从一个儿童机构到另一个或从一个医院到另一个,适当地说,从没有在一个寄养家庭中待过。这几次的住院被认为有必要,因为他患有各种的儿童疾病,有扁桃线炎,脑神经血管硬化,他被给予电磁波检查。结果作出正常的健康跟医学评估,指示深刻的身体的不适征状。这些身体的不适征状被改进之后,心理的征状恶化。当罗勃三岁半时,Denfert 医院的最后评估建议,他应该被被囚禁起来,那本来会上确定的,因为他具有一种没有清楚定义的类似精神疾病的状态。根据Geseivs 的测验,他的智商是43.

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-21 22:36:11

    大黑天 So he arrived, at the age of three and a half, at the institution, the unit at the Denfert repository, where I undertook his treatment. At that time, he was in the following condition. 3岁9个月时他来到我们机构,我在治疗中接待了他。当时,他处在以下的状态中。 雄伯订正 当他3岁9个月时,他来到我们机构,在Denfert 寄养机构的一个单位。在那里,我从事对于他的治疗。当时,他处在以下的状态中。

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-21 22:47:04

    大黑天 From the point of view of height and weight, he was in very good shape, except for a chronic bilateral otorrhea. From the standpoint of motor activity, he had a swinging gait, extreme lack of coordination in his movements, a constant hyperagitation. From the point of view of language, complete absence of coordinated speech, frequent screams, guttural and discordant laughter. He yelled the only two words he knew -Miss! and wolfl This word, wolf!, he repeated throughout the day, so I nicknamed him the wolf-child, because that really was the image he had of himself. 身高体重没大问题,只是有双侧耳漏。身体运动方面,走路摇摆缺乏协调性。语言方面,话语协调性丧失,频繁的叫喊,怪笑。他只会喊两个字:母亲和狼。我给他起名叫狼孩。 雄伯订正 从身高及体种的观点来看,他处于情况良好,除了有慢性的双侧耳漏。从身体活动机能的观点来看,他走路有摇摆姿态,极端地欠缺动作的协调性,经常处于过分激动的状态。从语言的观点而言,他完全欠缺协调的语言,经常尖叫,发出吼声,及刺耳的笑声。他仅是喊叫出他知道的两个字词—小姐!狼!这个字,狼!他重复一整天。所以我替他起个绰号:狼孩,因为那确实是他对他自己拥有的意象。

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-21 23:03:22

    大黑天 From the point of view of his behaviour, he was hyperactive, continually prey to jerky and disorderly movements, without aim. Unorganised prehensive activity - he would throw his arm out to take hold of an object and if he didn't reach it, he couldn't correct it, and had to start the movement all over again from the beginning. A variety of sleeping problems. With this permanent condition as a background, he experienced convulsive fits of agitation, without any true convulsions, with reddening of the face, piercing howls, during each of the routine moments of his daily life--the pot, and above all the emptying of the pot, undressing, feeding, open doors, which he couldn't stand, likewise darkness, other children's yelling, and as we will see, moving rooms. 行为举止方面,他活动亢进,没有目的的紊乱和粗糙的行动,为了抓一个对象把自己的胳膊甩出去,如果他不能拿到便重新再来。以及各种睡眠问题。在他日常生活的一些很平常的时刻,比如空瓶子,脱衣服,开门,黑暗,其它孩子的喊叫他都不能忍受,他会有痉挛发作,伴随脸红,刺耳的嚎叫。 雄伯订正 从他的行为的观点,他是过分活动,无缘无故地,不断地成为猛烈而混乱的动作的受害者,胡乱无章地猛抓住东西的动作—他经常将他的手臂猛然伸出,为了捉住一件东西。假如他没有捉住它,他无法改正它,他必须从开始一再地开始这个动作。他还有各种的睡眠的问题。由于有这个永久的情况作为背景,他经验到各种痉挛性的激动发作,但是并没有真正的痉挛,脸部发红,嚎叫尖锐,在他日常生活的例行的每个时刻,便盆,尤其是清理便盆,脱衣,餵食,开门。我们看出,他无法忍受其他小孩的喊叫,及在各个房间走动,也无法忍受黑暗。

  • 双臂大黑天

    双臂大黑天 (朴素的生活与遥远的梦想) 楼主 2012-07-24 21:01:02

    谢谢雄伯订正,改天我再把它整理整理发上来。

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-07-24 23:17:09

    大黑天,能否顺便说一下,狼人的个案是强迫性症obsessional?还是妄想症paranoia?为什么?

  • springhero

    springhero 大他者 2012-08-24 18:20:20

    Within Lacan's works, the main references that have inspired the psychoanalysts who work with psychotic and autistic children (leaving aside for the moment the distinction between the two terms) are: • The doctoral thesis on paranoia (1932). • The article on the family published in the Encyclopédie française (1938). • The commentaries on the cases of Dick (treated by Melanie Klein; Klein 1930) and Robert (treated by Rosine Lefort; Lefort and Lefort 1988). Both are part of the 1953-54 seminar, or Seminar I. 在拉康的著作里,曾经启发精神分析家的主要的指称如下,他们研究精神错乱及自闭症儿童(暂时将这两个术语的区别搁置): 1、 对于偏执狂的博士论文 (1932) 2、 论家庭的文章,发表于法国百科全书(1938) 3、 有关个案的评论,对于笛克(梅兰妮、克莱恩所治疗:克莱恩,1930年)及罗伯特(由罗欣尼所治疗:雷弗特1988年)。两个个案都是1953-54的研讨班的部分,或是第一研讨班。 雄伯说 罗伯特的个案,就是双臂大黑天翻译一半的「狼孩」,请参照。

你的回应

回应请先 , 或 注册

9435 人聚集在这个小组
↑回顶部