【翻译】精神分析技术的基础1.1：推迟理解
Deferring Understanding 推迟理解
Within himself as well as in the external world, [the analyst] must always expect to find something new. — Freud (i942b/j958, p. JJ7)
在他自身之中，以及外在世界里，（分析师）必须总是期待去发现某些新的东西。——弗洛伊德
The unconscious shuts down insofar as the analyst no longer "supports speech," because he already knows or thinks he knows what speech has to say. —Lacan (2006, p. 359)
在当分析师不再支持言说的时候，无意识关闭了，因为他已经知道或者认为他知道有什么是要说的了。——拉康
If our attempts to "understand" ineluctably lead us to reduce what another person is saying to what we think we already know (indeed, that could serve as a pretty fair definition of understanding in general),8 one of the first steps we must take is to stop trying to understand so quickly. It is not by showing the analysand that we understand what he is saying that we build an alliance with him—especially given the fact that our attempts to show him that we understand often fall flat and demonstrate the exact opposite—but, rather, by listening to him in a way that he has never been listened to before. Since "the very foundation of inter human discourse is misunderstanding" (Lacan, 1993, p. 184), we cannot rely upon understanding to establish a solid relationship with the analysand. Instead, we must "exhibit a serious interest in him" (Freud, 1913/1958, p. 139) by listening in a way that demonstrates that' we are paying attention to what he says in a fashion hitherto unknown to him.
如果我们“理解”的企图不可避免的带领我们把另一个人正在说的东西归纳到我们认为自己已经知道的东西里面去（确实，通常来说，那样可能充当了对理解的一个非常公平的定义），我们必须采取的最初的步骤之一是停止尝试这么快地去理解。这并不是通过向分析者显示我们理解他正在说的东西，以及我们和他建立同盟——特别是有这样的事实：我们向他显示我们的理解的企图经常失败，而且证明恰好是相反的——而是，通过以一种他从未被那样倾听的方式去倾听他。因为“人际间的谈话最基础的是误解”，我们不能依赖理解去和分析者建立一个牢靠的关系。相反，我们必须“显示出对他的一种严肃的兴趣”，我们正在以一种至今对他来说是未知的方式关注他所说的东西，就是以这样的方式倾听。
Whereas most of those who have listened to him in the past have allowed him to speak only briefly and then responded with their own stories, perspectives, and advice,9 the analyst allows him to speak at great length, interrupting him only to ask for clarification about something he said, for further details about something, and for other similar examples. Unlike most of those who have listened to the analysand before, the analyst takes note of the fact that the analysand used the exact same words or expressions to characterize his wife early in the session and his grandmother half an hour—or even several sessions—later. If she focuses on what the analysands discourse means about her, she cannot so easily remember many of the particulars of what the analysand says, whether they concern the analysands early life events, brothers' and sisters' names, or current relationships.
鉴于大多数在过去已经倾听过他的人只让他简略的讲述，然后用他们自己的故事、观点和建议回应他，分析师允许他大量的讲述，只在为了澄清某些他所说的话，为了关于某事更多的细节，为了其他类似的情况的时候才打断他。不像大多数之前倾听过分析者的那些人，分析师记住分析者在会谈早期使用的确切的相同的词或表情来描述他的老婆，以及半个小时（甚至是几次会谈）后描述他的祖母。如果她聚焦在分析者的言说中与她相关的意味的是什么，她就不能如此轻易的记住很多分析者所说的东西的特殊点，不管它们是否涉及到分析者早期生活事件，兄弟姐妹的名字，或者当前的关系。
The less the analyst considers herself to be targeted by the analysands discourse, and the less she concerns herself with how that discourse reflects upon her, the more of it she will be able to remember quite effortlessly.10 (I generally take it as a bad sign when an analyst can only summarize in her own words what the analysand said and cannot remember any of it verbatim.) The less she uses herself as the measure of all things in the analysands discourse, the more easily she can approach the latter on its own terms, from its own frame of reference. It is only in this way that she can hope to explore the world as the analysand sees and experiences it, not from the "outside"—that is, by imposing her own way of functioning in the world, her own modus vivendi, on to the analysand—but to a greater or lesser degree from the "inside" (I am obviously employing such terms in a very approximate way here).11
分析师对她自己被分析者的言说所瞄准的考虑越少，她对那言说是如何反射给她的关心的越少，她将能非常轻松地记住的也就越多。（我一般把它视作一个糟糕的信号，也就是当一个分析师只能用她自己的话来总结分析者所说的东西，以及不能记住逐字逐句的记住其中任何一点的时候。）她越少的使用自己作为分析者的言说中的一切事情的量度，她越容易以信件自身的期限，从它自个的参考系抵达它。只有以这种方式她才能希望去探索作为分析者看到和经验到的世界，不是从“外部”——也就是说，通过把自己在这个世界的运作方式，自己的生活方式强加给分析者——而是或深或浅程度上来自于“内部”（我显然在这儿以一种非常近似的方式采用这样的术语）
This does not mean that the analyst must ultimately come to see the analysand's world the way he himself sees it, for the analysand generally only sees a part of it, not wanting to see other parts of it, in particular those parts that he considers unsavory or finds unpleasant or repulsive.12Although she listens intently to the story as told by the analysand, she must not believe everything she hears, even if she is often best advised not to express a great deal of disbelief at the outset. In most cases, skepticism as to whether we are hearing the whole story—whether of a particular event or of the analysand's life in general—or just a carefully orchestrated rendition of certain parts of it should be introduced only gradually; otherwise, the analysand may get the impression that we do not believe anything he says and follow the all-too-common inclination to find someone who will. This may be especially important when the analysand is experiencing marital problems and has come primarily at the insistence of his wife; if he does not find at least a temporary ally in his analyst—someone who seems to believe at least much of his side of the story—he will likely flee in search of a practitioner who is willing to side with him.
这并不意味着分析师必须极端地来以分析者自己的方式去看待他的世界，因为分析者通常只能看到其中一部分，并不想去看看其他部分，特别是那些他觉得讨厌的或发现是令人不快或可憎的部分。尽管她专心地倾听分析者讲述的故事，她必须不要相信她所听到的一切，即使她经常被建议最好不要从一开始表达大量的怀疑。在大多数情况下，对我们正在听全部的故事——通常是一个特殊的事件或者分析者的生活——或仅仅是其中某部分的一个精心安排的表演，这种怀疑态度应该只是渐渐地引入；不然的话，分析者会有一种印象——我们并不相信任何他所说的东西，并且顺着太过于寻常的意向去寻找某个会这样做的人。这可能是格外重要的，当分析者正经历着婚姻问题，并且主要是他的老婆的坚决要求才过来的；如果他没有至少暂时的在他的分析师那儿找到同盟——某个似乎至少相信大量的他这边的故事——他将可能逃跑而去找一个会站在他这边的开业者。
On the other hand, an adolescent who is used to successfully duping adults is often better met with skepticism on the analyst's part right from the outset; should the analyst seem to be buying the story—that the adolescent has not, in fact, done anything wrong and is simply the victim of circumstances, for example—the analysis is likely to crash before it ever gets off the ground, so to speak. Early expressions of skepticism also make sense with people who have been in therapy before or who are already quite familiar with psychoanalytic theory.
另一方面，一个习惯于成功的愚弄成人的青少年最好在一开始就遇上分析师这边的怀疑态度。假如分析师似乎相信了那故事——比如说，青少年事实上并没有做过任何错事，只是环境的受害者——可以说，分析可能就在取得进展之前就出问题了。对于那些之前已经接受过治疗的人或已经相当熟悉精神分析理论的人来说，分析师的早期怀疑态度的表达也是合理的。
ln everyday discourse, we generally show other people that we are listening to what they are saying by nodding or saying "yes" or "yeah," all of which imply assent—that we agree, that we are buying the story we are being told. Analytic discourse, on the other hand, requires something different of us: It requires us to show that we are listening intently without suggesting that we either believe or disbelieve what we are hearing.
在每天的谈话中，我们一般通过点头或说“是”，来向其他人显示自己正在听他们在讲述的那些东西。这种做法都暗示着赞同——我们同意，我们相信正被告之的故事。另一方面，分析性谈话，需要我们有某些不同的东西——需要我们显示出我们正在专心倾听，而不提出我们是相信还是不信我们正在听到的东西。
The analyst also should eschew conventional ways of expressing attentiveness to what someone is recounting, such as saying "interesting" or "fascinating," as these comments are hackneyed and often suggest a condescending and distant perspective. They also suggest that the analyst thinks she understands what the analysand has said. Instead, she should cultivate a wide range of "hmms" and ''huhs'' (not "uh-huhs," which have come to signify agreement, at least in American English) of various lengths,tones, and intensities, which can be used to encourage the analysand to go on with what he is saying, to further explain something, or simply to let the analysand know that she is following or at least awake and inviting him to continue. One of the advantages of such sounds is that their meaning is not easily identifiable and the analysand can thus project many different meanings onto any one particular sound.
分析师同样应该避免对某人正在描述的东西表达专注的老套的方式，比如说“很有趣”或“太吸引人了”，因为这些评论是陈腐的，经常暗示了一种优越感或疏远的看法。它们同样暗示，分析师认为她懂分析者已经讲过的东西。相反，她应该培养一种广泛的各种长度的“嗯”和“哈”（不是“啊哈”，这已经用来表示赞同，至少在美式英语里面是这样），语气和强度，这能够用来鼓励分析者继续他讲下去，进一步解释某些东西，或者仅仅是让分析者知道她正在跟随着，或至少激起或邀请他继续。这样的声音的好处之一是，它们的意思并不容易确认，这样分析者能够对任何一个特殊声音投射很多不同的意义。
For example, a "hmm" sound l occasionally make to indicate simply that l have heard something an analysand has just said is sometimes interpreted as a skeptical sound by an analysand who is not too comfortable with the perspective he has been propounding—that is, he believes l am calling his perspective into question. l often have had no such intent when making that particular sound, but the "hmm" is sufficiently ambiguous that an analysand who is suspicious of his own motives or perspectives can "hear" it as a request for him to explore the latter. He projects his own suspicions onto me, and his own suspicions can only come to the fore and be discussed when they are attributed to me first.
例如，我偶尔说声“嗯”来简单地表明，我已经听到一个分析者刚说过的东西，这有时被一个对他已经在提到的观点感到不太舒服的分析者解读为一个怀疑的声音——也就是说，他相信我对他的观点表示怀疑。当我在发出那种特殊的声音的时候，我经常并没有这样的意图，但是“嗯”是足够地模糊不清的，以至于一个怀疑自己的动机或观点的分析者能够把它“听成”要他去探索那个字的要求。他把自己的怀疑投射给了我，他自己的怀疑只能在一开始就被归于我的时候才浮现出来。
Given that the implicit rules of everyday conversation require that each party be allowed to speak in turn (however much these rules are violated by many of the people we encounter in everyday life!), the analyst must encourage the analysand to keep talking even when the usual conventions would require that the analysand give it a rest and let the analyst chime in. This means that the analyst's listening is not passive—indeed, it must be quite active. The analyst who gives the analysand little or no eye contact and/or who writes down virtually everything the analysand says is likely to provide scant encouragement of the analysand's speech. lf the analyst is to engage the analysand in the analytic process, she herself must be anything but a detached, objective observer—she must manifest her own active engagement in the process. The more she is engaged, the more engaged the analysand is likely to feel—assuming, that is, that the analyst's engagement is of a certain open, interested, and encouraging type and not of a defensive, smothering, or self-disclosing type. One of my analysands occasionally says that during our sessions he has the sense that he is "surfing on the waves of [my] 'hmms' and 'huhs' ", he tends to comment on that particularly at moments when he feels that those waves are less abundant than usual—that is, when he feels that I am not listening as actively as usual.
日常交流的含蓄的规则需要每一方都被允许轮流讲话（然而许多这样的规则被很多我们在日常生活中遇到的人违背了），当通常的惯例会需要分析者给个空闲让分析师插话的时候，分析师必须鼓励分析者说下去。这意味着分析师的倾听不是消极的——确实，必须得相当的主动。给分析者很少的或没有眼神交流和（或）几乎记下分析者所说的一切东西的分析师，可能提供给分析者讲话的鼓励是缺乏的。如果分析师要让分析者参与到分析的进程中去，那么她自己一定不要是一个超脱的、主观的观察者——她必须显示出自己主动的参与到这个过程中。她参与得越多，分析者可能感受到的参与也就越多。——也就是说，假设分析师的参与是一种确定的开放性的，充满兴趣的，鼓励型的，而不是防御性的、令人窒息的或自我暴露型的。我的分析者中的一个偶尔说到，在我们的会谈中他有一种感觉他正“漂流在（我的）‘嗯’和‘哈’的波浪上”，在他感到那些波浪不如往常丰富的时候——也就是说，当他感到我不如往常那样活跃地倾听的时候——他会对此评论。
This points to one way in which the "analyst's neutrality" is a myth—the analyst is anything but a neutral, indifferent, inactive figure on the analytic stage. Chapter 4 addresses this issue in more depth.
对“分析师的中立性”的风格的这种观点是虚构出来的——分析师在分析的舞台上不是一个中立的、冷淡的、不主动的形象。第四章对此有更深的论述。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7Lacan (2006, p. 595) referred to this as the "dyadic relation," by which he meant that the analytic relationship is construed in such cases as nothing more than a relationship between two egos. A supervisee of mine once let a patient break off his therapy after a slight lifting of his deep depression. When I asked her why she had not tried to keep him in therapy to see if his depression could be further dissipated, she explained that it seemed to her that there were good reasons to think life depressing— isn't some depression, she retorted, a sensible response to life in our times? I pointed out to her that, regardless of her theoretical perspective on the matter, she seemed to be assuming that her patient's reasons for being depressed were the same as hers (or what she believed to be hers), when his might well have been entirely different from hers. In comparing his reasons to her own, she was excluding or failing to hear the ways in which they potentially differed. See Lacans (1990) highly original take on sadness and depression as a moral failing or moral weakness, at times going as far as a "rejection of the unconscious" (p. 22), which is equivalent in this context to foreclosure (see Chapter 10).
拉康把这称为“二元关系”，他的意思是分析性关系在这种情况下被理解为不外乎是两个自我之间的关系。我的一个督导曾今让一个病人在他的深度抑郁轻微的唤起之后中断了治疗。当我问她，为什么她没有试着让他呆在治疗中，看看他的抑郁是否能够在更深的程度上被消除，她解释说，对她来说似乎是有很好的理由去认为生活是令人抑郁的——她反驳说不是什么抑郁症，而是一种对我们这个时代的生活的明智的回应。不顾她在这个问题上的理论观点，我向她指出，她似乎假设她的病人抑郁的原因和她是一样的（或者她所相信的东西是她的），当他的能力已经完全不同于她的时候。比较他的理由和她自己的，她正在拒绝或者没有听到他们潜在的不同的方面。拉康非常独创性地把悲伤和抑郁视作道德上的失败或弱点，有时达到一种“无意识的拒绝”的程度，在这篇文本中和排除是同一个意思。（见第十章）
8"Too explain a thing means to trace it back to something already known" (Freud, 1900/1958, p. 549; see also Freud, 1916-1917/1963, p. 280). Patrick Casement (1991, pp. 3, 8-9) said much the same thing and emphasized the importance of deferring understanding and "learning from the patient" how different he is from all those the analyst has encountered before, whether in the clinic or the literature.
“解释一个事情意味着回溯到某个已经知道的事上”（弗洛伊德），Patrick Casement差不多说同样的事，强调延迟理解和“从病人那里学习”他（病人）和所有那些分析师之前遇到的人是多么的不一样，不管是临床上还是文学上。
9 Regarding advice-giving, Lacan (1993, p. 152) said, "It's not simply because we know too little of a subject's life that we are unable to tell him whether he would do better to marry or not in such and such circumstances and will, if we're honest, tend to be reticent—it's because the very meaning of marriage is, for each of us, a question that remains open."
至于提供意见，拉康说，“这不是简单的因为我们对一个主体的生活知道的太少，以至于我们不能告诉他是否要在这样的情况和意志下结婚，如果我们诚实的话，保持沉默——这是因为，对我们每一个人来说，婚姻的每一种意义都是一个有待打开的问题。”
10 As Lacan (1968a, p. 22) put it, "If you allow yourself to become obsessed with what in the analysand's discourse concerns you, you are not yet in his discourse." This is one of the reasons why it is virtually impossible for an analyst to do psychoanalysis with a relative or close friend: It is not simply that the transference may sour relations between the analyst and the relative or friend (Freud mentioned that the analyst who takes a family member or friend into analysis must be prepared to permanently lose all friendly contact with that person), but that the analyst is likely to have difficulty listening in any mode other than the imaginary mode.
正如拉康所言，“如果你允许你自己纠缠在分析者的言说中有关于你的东西，你还没有处在他的言说之中。”这是为什么对一个分析师来说和一个有关系的或亲密的朋友做精神分析基本上是不可能的：并不简单是因为转移会污染分析师和那个有关系的或亲密的朋友之间的关系（弗洛伊德提到把一个家庭成员或朋友带进分析之中的分析师必须做好准备永久地失去和那个人的所有友好的联系），而是因为分析师可能除了在想象的模式中以外的任何模式都有着倾听上的困难。
11Lacan (1976, p. 47) remarked, "f don't believe at all that there is an inner world that reflects the outer world, nor the contrary. I have tried to formulate something that indisputably assumes a more complicated organization."
拉康评论道，“我一点也不相信有一个反映外在世界的内在世界，反过来也是。我已经试过构想某种东西，即无可争辩地假定一个个更复杂的组织。”
12 Indeed, were the story the analysand tells about his world the whole story, there would be nothing more to be said and nothing to be done about it, except perhaps taking some very practical action like leaving home or getting divorced. If the analysand is loath to take such action, it is probably related to something that he has left out of his rendition of the story.
确实，假如分析者讲述有关他的世界的故事是完整的，除了可能采取很多实际的行动，比如离家出走或离婚以外，可能没有更多可说的了以及无能为力了。如果分析者不情愿采取这样的行动，这可能和他的故事版本中省略掉的某些东西有关。
Within himself as well as in the external world, [the analyst] must always expect to find something new. — Freud (i942b/j958, p. JJ7)
在他自身之中，以及外在世界里，（分析师）必须总是期待去发现某些新的东西。——弗洛伊德
The unconscious shuts down insofar as the analyst no longer "supports speech," because he already knows or thinks he knows what speech has to say. —Lacan (2006, p. 359)
在当分析师不再支持言说的时候，无意识关闭了，因为他已经知道或者认为他知道有什么是要说的了。——拉康
If our attempts to "understand" ineluctably lead us to reduce what another person is saying to what we think we already know (indeed, that could serve as a pretty fair definition of understanding in general),8 one of the first steps we must take is to stop trying to understand so quickly. It is not by showing the analysand that we understand what he is saying that we build an alliance with him—especially given the fact that our attempts to show him that we understand often fall flat and demonstrate the exact opposite—but, rather, by listening to him in a way that he has never been listened to before. Since "the very foundation of inter human discourse is misunderstanding" (Lacan, 1993, p. 184), we cannot rely upon understanding to establish a solid relationship with the analysand. Instead, we must "exhibit a serious interest in him" (Freud, 1913/1958, p. 139) by listening in a way that demonstrates that' we are paying attention to what he says in a fashion hitherto unknown to him.
如果我们“理解”的企图不可避免的带领我们把另一个人正在说的东西归纳到我们认为自己已经知道的东西里面去（确实，通常来说，那样可能充当了对理解的一个非常公平的定义），我们必须采取的最初的步骤之一是停止尝试这么快地去理解。这并不是通过向分析者显示我们理解他正在说的东西，以及我们和他建立同盟——特别是有这样的事实：我们向他显示我们的理解的企图经常失败，而且证明恰好是相反的——而是，通过以一种他从未被那样倾听的方式去倾听他。因为“人际间的谈话最基础的是误解”，我们不能依赖理解去和分析者建立一个牢靠的关系。相反，我们必须“显示出对他的一种严肃的兴趣”，我们正在以一种至今对他来说是未知的方式关注他所说的东西，就是以这样的方式倾听。
Whereas most of those who have listened to him in the past have allowed him to speak only briefly and then responded with their own stories, perspectives, and advice,9 the analyst allows him to speak at great length, interrupting him only to ask for clarification about something he said, for further details about something, and for other similar examples. Unlike most of those who have listened to the analysand before, the analyst takes note of the fact that the analysand used the exact same words or expressions to characterize his wife early in the session and his grandmother half an hour—or even several sessions—later. If she focuses on what the analysands discourse means about her, she cannot so easily remember many of the particulars of what the analysand says, whether they concern the analysands early life events, brothers' and sisters' names, or current relationships.
鉴于大多数在过去已经倾听过他的人只让他简略的讲述，然后用他们自己的故事、观点和建议回应他，分析师允许他大量的讲述，只在为了澄清某些他所说的话，为了关于某事更多的细节，为了其他类似的情况的时候才打断他。不像大多数之前倾听过分析者的那些人，分析师记住分析者在会谈早期使用的确切的相同的词或表情来描述他的老婆，以及半个小时（甚至是几次会谈）后描述他的祖母。如果她聚焦在分析者的言说中与她相关的意味的是什么，她就不能如此轻易的记住很多分析者所说的东西的特殊点，不管它们是否涉及到分析者早期生活事件，兄弟姐妹的名字，或者当前的关系。
The less the analyst considers herself to be targeted by the analysands discourse, and the less she concerns herself with how that discourse reflects upon her, the more of it she will be able to remember quite effortlessly.10 (I generally take it as a bad sign when an analyst can only summarize in her own words what the analysand said and cannot remember any of it verbatim.) The less she uses herself as the measure of all things in the analysands discourse, the more easily she can approach the latter on its own terms, from its own frame of reference. It is only in this way that she can hope to explore the world as the analysand sees and experiences it, not from the "outside"—that is, by imposing her own way of functioning in the world, her own modus vivendi, on to the analysand—but to a greater or lesser degree from the "inside" (I am obviously employing such terms in a very approximate way here).11
分析师对她自己被分析者的言说所瞄准的考虑越少，她对那言说是如何反射给她的关心的越少，她将能非常轻松地记住的也就越多。（我一般把它视作一个糟糕的信号，也就是当一个分析师只能用她自己的话来总结分析者所说的东西，以及不能记住逐字逐句的记住其中任何一点的时候。）她越少的使用自己作为分析者的言说中的一切事情的量度，她越容易以信件自身的期限，从它自个的参考系抵达它。只有以这种方式她才能希望去探索作为分析者看到和经验到的世界，不是从“外部”——也就是说，通过把自己在这个世界的运作方式，自己的生活方式强加给分析者——而是或深或浅程度上来自于“内部”（我显然在这儿以一种非常近似的方式采用这样的术语）
This does not mean that the analyst must ultimately come to see the analysand's world the way he himself sees it, for the analysand generally only sees a part of it, not wanting to see other parts of it, in particular those parts that he considers unsavory or finds unpleasant or repulsive.12Although she listens intently to the story as told by the analysand, she must not believe everything she hears, even if she is often best advised not to express a great deal of disbelief at the outset. In most cases, skepticism as to whether we are hearing the whole story—whether of a particular event or of the analysand's life in general—or just a carefully orchestrated rendition of certain parts of it should be introduced only gradually; otherwise, the analysand may get the impression that we do not believe anything he says and follow the all-too-common inclination to find someone who will. This may be especially important when the analysand is experiencing marital problems and has come primarily at the insistence of his wife; if he does not find at least a temporary ally in his analyst—someone who seems to believe at least much of his side of the story—he will likely flee in search of a practitioner who is willing to side with him.
这并不意味着分析师必须极端地来以分析者自己的方式去看待他的世界，因为分析者通常只能看到其中一部分，并不想去看看其他部分，特别是那些他觉得讨厌的或发现是令人不快或可憎的部分。尽管她专心地倾听分析者讲述的故事，她必须不要相信她所听到的一切，即使她经常被建议最好不要从一开始表达大量的怀疑。在大多数情况下，对我们正在听全部的故事——通常是一个特殊的事件或者分析者的生活——或仅仅是其中某部分的一个精心安排的表演，这种怀疑态度应该只是渐渐地引入；不然的话，分析者会有一种印象——我们并不相信任何他所说的东西，并且顺着太过于寻常的意向去寻找某个会这样做的人。这可能是格外重要的，当分析者正经历着婚姻问题，并且主要是他的老婆的坚决要求才过来的；如果他没有至少暂时的在他的分析师那儿找到同盟——某个似乎至少相信大量的他这边的故事——他将可能逃跑而去找一个会站在他这边的开业者。
On the other hand, an adolescent who is used to successfully duping adults is often better met with skepticism on the analyst's part right from the outset; should the analyst seem to be buying the story—that the adolescent has not, in fact, done anything wrong and is simply the victim of circumstances, for example—the analysis is likely to crash before it ever gets off the ground, so to speak. Early expressions of skepticism also make sense with people who have been in therapy before or who are already quite familiar with psychoanalytic theory.
另一方面，一个习惯于成功的愚弄成人的青少年最好在一开始就遇上分析师这边的怀疑态度。假如分析师似乎相信了那故事——比如说，青少年事实上并没有做过任何错事，只是环境的受害者——可以说，分析可能就在取得进展之前就出问题了。对于那些之前已经接受过治疗的人或已经相当熟悉精神分析理论的人来说，分析师的早期怀疑态度的表达也是合理的。
ln everyday discourse, we generally show other people that we are listening to what they are saying by nodding or saying "yes" or "yeah," all of which imply assent—that we agree, that we are buying the story we are being told. Analytic discourse, on the other hand, requires something different of us: It requires us to show that we are listening intently without suggesting that we either believe or disbelieve what we are hearing.
在每天的谈话中，我们一般通过点头或说“是”，来向其他人显示自己正在听他们在讲述的那些东西。这种做法都暗示着赞同——我们同意，我们相信正被告之的故事。另一方面，分析性谈话，需要我们有某些不同的东西——需要我们显示出我们正在专心倾听，而不提出我们是相信还是不信我们正在听到的东西。
The analyst also should eschew conventional ways of expressing attentiveness to what someone is recounting, such as saying "interesting" or "fascinating," as these comments are hackneyed and often suggest a condescending and distant perspective. They also suggest that the analyst thinks she understands what the analysand has said. Instead, she should cultivate a wide range of "hmms" and ''huhs'' (not "uh-huhs," which have come to signify agreement, at least in American English) of various lengths,tones, and intensities, which can be used to encourage the analysand to go on with what he is saying, to further explain something, or simply to let the analysand know that she is following or at least awake and inviting him to continue. One of the advantages of such sounds is that their meaning is not easily identifiable and the analysand can thus project many different meanings onto any one particular sound.
分析师同样应该避免对某人正在描述的东西表达专注的老套的方式，比如说“很有趣”或“太吸引人了”，因为这些评论是陈腐的，经常暗示了一种优越感或疏远的看法。它们同样暗示，分析师认为她懂分析者已经讲过的东西。相反，她应该培养一种广泛的各种长度的“嗯”和“哈”（不是“啊哈”，这已经用来表示赞同，至少在美式英语里面是这样），语气和强度，这能够用来鼓励分析者继续他讲下去，进一步解释某些东西，或者仅仅是让分析者知道她正在跟随着，或至少激起或邀请他继续。这样的声音的好处之一是，它们的意思并不容易确认，这样分析者能够对任何一个特殊声音投射很多不同的意义。
For example, a "hmm" sound l occasionally make to indicate simply that l have heard something an analysand has just said is sometimes interpreted as a skeptical sound by an analysand who is not too comfortable with the perspective he has been propounding—that is, he believes l am calling his perspective into question. l often have had no such intent when making that particular sound, but the "hmm" is sufficiently ambiguous that an analysand who is suspicious of his own motives or perspectives can "hear" it as a request for him to explore the latter. He projects his own suspicions onto me, and his own suspicions can only come to the fore and be discussed when they are attributed to me first.
例如，我偶尔说声“嗯”来简单地表明，我已经听到一个分析者刚说过的东西，这有时被一个对他已经在提到的观点感到不太舒服的分析者解读为一个怀疑的声音——也就是说，他相信我对他的观点表示怀疑。当我在发出那种特殊的声音的时候，我经常并没有这样的意图，但是“嗯”是足够地模糊不清的，以至于一个怀疑自己的动机或观点的分析者能够把它“听成”要他去探索那个字的要求。他把自己的怀疑投射给了我，他自己的怀疑只能在一开始就被归于我的时候才浮现出来。
Given that the implicit rules of everyday conversation require that each party be allowed to speak in turn (however much these rules are violated by many of the people we encounter in everyday life!), the analyst must encourage the analysand to keep talking even when the usual conventions would require that the analysand give it a rest and let the analyst chime in. This means that the analyst's listening is not passive—indeed, it must be quite active. The analyst who gives the analysand little or no eye contact and/or who writes down virtually everything the analysand says is likely to provide scant encouragement of the analysand's speech. lf the analyst is to engage the analysand in the analytic process, she herself must be anything but a detached, objective observer—she must manifest her own active engagement in the process. The more she is engaged, the more engaged the analysand is likely to feel—assuming, that is, that the analyst's engagement is of a certain open, interested, and encouraging type and not of a defensive, smothering, or self-disclosing type. One of my analysands occasionally says that during our sessions he has the sense that he is "surfing on the waves of [my] 'hmms' and 'huhs' ", he tends to comment on that particularly at moments when he feels that those waves are less abundant than usual—that is, when he feels that I am not listening as actively as usual.
日常交流的含蓄的规则需要每一方都被允许轮流讲话（然而许多这样的规则被很多我们在日常生活中遇到的人违背了），当通常的惯例会需要分析者给个空闲让分析师插话的时候，分析师必须鼓励分析者说下去。这意味着分析师的倾听不是消极的——确实，必须得相当的主动。给分析者很少的或没有眼神交流和（或）几乎记下分析者所说的一切东西的分析师，可能提供给分析者讲话的鼓励是缺乏的。如果分析师要让分析者参与到分析的进程中去，那么她自己一定不要是一个超脱的、主观的观察者——她必须显示出自己主动的参与到这个过程中。她参与得越多，分析者可能感受到的参与也就越多。——也就是说，假设分析师的参与是一种确定的开放性的，充满兴趣的，鼓励型的，而不是防御性的、令人窒息的或自我暴露型的。我的分析者中的一个偶尔说到，在我们的会谈中他有一种感觉他正“漂流在（我的）‘嗯’和‘哈’的波浪上”，在他感到那些波浪不如往常丰富的时候——也就是说，当他感到我不如往常那样活跃地倾听的时候——他会对此评论。
This points to one way in which the "analyst's neutrality" is a myth—the analyst is anything but a neutral, indifferent, inactive figure on the analytic stage. Chapter 4 addresses this issue in more depth.
对“分析师的中立性”的风格的这种观点是虚构出来的——分析师在分析的舞台上不是一个中立的、冷淡的、不主动的形象。第四章对此有更深的论述。
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7Lacan (2006, p. 595) referred to this as the "dyadic relation," by which he meant that the analytic relationship is construed in such cases as nothing more than a relationship between two egos. A supervisee of mine once let a patient break off his therapy after a slight lifting of his deep depression. When I asked her why she had not tried to keep him in therapy to see if his depression could be further dissipated, she explained that it seemed to her that there were good reasons to think life depressing— isn't some depression, she retorted, a sensible response to life in our times? I pointed out to her that, regardless of her theoretical perspective on the matter, she seemed to be assuming that her patient's reasons for being depressed were the same as hers (or what she believed to be hers), when his might well have been entirely different from hers. In comparing his reasons to her own, she was excluding or failing to hear the ways in which they potentially differed. See Lacans (1990) highly original take on sadness and depression as a moral failing or moral weakness, at times going as far as a "rejection of the unconscious" (p. 22), which is equivalent in this context to foreclosure (see Chapter 10).
拉康把这称为“二元关系”，他的意思是分析性关系在这种情况下被理解为不外乎是两个自我之间的关系。我的一个督导曾今让一个病人在他的深度抑郁轻微的唤起之后中断了治疗。当我问她，为什么她没有试着让他呆在治疗中，看看他的抑郁是否能够在更深的程度上被消除，她解释说，对她来说似乎是有很好的理由去认为生活是令人抑郁的——她反驳说不是什么抑郁症，而是一种对我们这个时代的生活的明智的回应。不顾她在这个问题上的理论观点，我向她指出，她似乎假设她的病人抑郁的原因和她是一样的（或者她所相信的东西是她的），当他的能力已经完全不同于她的时候。比较他的理由和她自己的，她正在拒绝或者没有听到他们潜在的不同的方面。拉康非常独创性地把悲伤和抑郁视作道德上的失败或弱点，有时达到一种“无意识的拒绝”的程度，在这篇文本中和排除是同一个意思。（见第十章）
8"Too explain a thing means to trace it back to something already known" (Freud, 1900/1958, p. 549; see also Freud, 1916-1917/1963, p. 280). Patrick Casement (1991, pp. 3, 8-9) said much the same thing and emphasized the importance of deferring understanding and "learning from the patient" how different he is from all those the analyst has encountered before, whether in the clinic or the literature.
“解释一个事情意味着回溯到某个已经知道的事上”（弗洛伊德），Patrick Casement差不多说同样的事，强调延迟理解和“从病人那里学习”他（病人）和所有那些分析师之前遇到的人是多么的不一样，不管是临床上还是文学上。
9 Regarding advice-giving, Lacan (1993, p. 152) said, "It's not simply because we know too little of a subject's life that we are unable to tell him whether he would do better to marry or not in such and such circumstances and will, if we're honest, tend to be reticent—it's because the very meaning of marriage is, for each of us, a question that remains open."
至于提供意见，拉康说，“这不是简单的因为我们对一个主体的生活知道的太少，以至于我们不能告诉他是否要在这样的情况和意志下结婚，如果我们诚实的话，保持沉默——这是因为，对我们每一个人来说，婚姻的每一种意义都是一个有待打开的问题。”
10 As Lacan (1968a, p. 22) put it, "If you allow yourself to become obsessed with what in the analysand's discourse concerns you, you are not yet in his discourse." This is one of the reasons why it is virtually impossible for an analyst to do psychoanalysis with a relative or close friend: It is not simply that the transference may sour relations between the analyst and the relative or friend (Freud mentioned that the analyst who takes a family member or friend into analysis must be prepared to permanently lose all friendly contact with that person), but that the analyst is likely to have difficulty listening in any mode other than the imaginary mode.
正如拉康所言，“如果你允许你自己纠缠在分析者的言说中有关于你的东西，你还没有处在他的言说之中。”这是为什么对一个分析师来说和一个有关系的或亲密的朋友做精神分析基本上是不可能的：并不简单是因为转移会污染分析师和那个有关系的或亲密的朋友之间的关系（弗洛伊德提到把一个家庭成员或朋友带进分析之中的分析师必须做好准备永久地失去和那个人的所有友好的联系），而是因为分析师可能除了在想象的模式中以外的任何模式都有着倾听上的困难。
11Lacan (1976, p. 47) remarked, "f don't believe at all that there is an inner world that reflects the outer world, nor the contrary. I have tried to formulate something that indisputably assumes a more complicated organization."
拉康评论道，“我一点也不相信有一个反映外在世界的内在世界，反过来也是。我已经试过构想某种东西，即无可争辩地假定一个个更复杂的组织。”
12 Indeed, were the story the analysand tells about his world the whole story, there would be nothing more to be said and nothing to be done about it, except perhaps taking some very practical action like leaving home or getting divorced. If the analysand is loath to take such action, it is probably related to something that he has left out of his rendition of the story.
确实，假如分析者讲述有关他的世界的故事是完整的，除了可能采取很多实际的行动，比如离家出走或离婚以外，可能没有更多可说的了以及无能为力了。如果分析者不情愿采取这样的行动，这可能和他的故事版本中省略掉的某些东西有关。
