伊恩·萨蒂和他的主要观点 客体关系, 伊恩·萨蒂, 克莱茵, 爱与恨的起源

admints

Ian Dishart Suttie (1989-1935)

     提到客体关系理论，一般最容易想到的是克莱茵、温尼可特、费尔贝恩等人，而在他们之前，伊恩?萨蒂（Ian Suttie）已经开始离开弗洛伊德的本能理论，对心理发育和心理过程进行了另一个角度的思考。就像所有独创性的理论一样，最初的探索可能是粗略的，缺乏完整体系的，但在这些探索者身上却最能体现其探索的本质精神，甚至在理论已经趋于完整而精致的情形下，人们往往还是会惊异于他们最初的天才的洞识。因此，考察客体关系理论，从伊恩? 萨蒂开始无疑是最为合适的。

    萨蒂是早期塔维斯托克（Tavistock）小组的核心成员，他的工作令人注目地预示了费尔贝恩（Fairbairn）、冈特瑞普（Guntrip）、巴林特（Balintt）和温尼可特（Winnicott）的工作，并和梅兰妮?克莱茵（Melanie Klein）遥相呼应，后者对客体关系理论做出了更为全面的贡献。不过，萨蒂的观点代表的是与他那个年代的传统精神分析理论的决裂，而梅兰妮?克莱茵的意义主要在于她是一个过渡期的人物，在为维护客体关系理论的一致性所做的努力中，她并没有明确地超越内驱力防御心理学（drive defence psychology）。

1923年，萨蒂给国际精神分析杂志寄去一篇文章，欧内斯特?琼斯（Ernest Jones）做出了一个艰难的决定，拒绝发表该文，与此同时，琼斯也见识了萨蒂富有才华的独创性。正如琼斯的传记（布罗姆，1982）里所说：“批评性的材料是一回事，而富于创新意义的论断则完全是另一回事。”现在，萨蒂被视为首批客体关系理论家中的一个，这是一种迟来的认可。根据布罗姆的看法，萨蒂的基本观点是：“从系统的观点来看待人，这个人是社会性的动物，他寻求客体的行为从出生时就显露出来了。这就以一种完全的客体关系理论代替了弗洛伊德的双重本能（dual instinct）理论”。

萨蒂的观点也预示了现代自体心理学的内容，这一点人们还很少认识到。这里只是对他的几点看法做一个勾勒，这些看法出自他的名作《爱与恨的起源》（1935）。

萨蒂的基本观点涉及到他所说的个体先天对友爱关系的需要：

在我看来，精神发展最重要的方面……是对于他人的观念和个体自身所拥有的与他们的关系……人（对弗洛伊德来说）是一个由诸多能量组成的聚合体，这些能量寻求释放，却被恐惧所阻碍。与此相反，我认为情感表达并不是出于它自身需要倾吐的缘故，而是一个要求从他人那里得到回应的前奏。我想，他人没有回应正是所有焦虑和愤怒的根源，因而，个体表达这些焦虑和愤怒完全是有目的的。

弗洛伊德认为，婴儿的内心充满了具有伴随性或竞争性的本能；而在萨蒂眼里，婴儿的内心世界从一开始就被与母亲建立一种亲密关系的需要所支配，如果这种需要受到阻碍的话，就会产生极度的恐惧和愤怒。对萨蒂来说，“人世间本没有恨，是爱转变成了恨，地狱里本没有狂暴，是一个婴孩受到嘲笑”。开始阶段，婴儿体验到的“只有快乐和友善，这些都是毫无保留地给予他的……当他发现他人的慈爱是反复无常的或者有条件的，当他感觉到他所拥有的东西依次都有被批评和被拒绝的倾向……（他的）遭受挫折的社会性的爱就转变为焦虑……如果挫折过于严重，这种爱就会转变成恨。”

萨蒂对于愤怒所持的看法，使他认识到了我们现在所说的自体客体功能（selfobject functioning）在根本上的重要性。对萨蒂而言，愤怒并不是一种初级情感或者独立的本能，也不仅仅是一种对挫折或拒绝的反应，而是一种 “持续的得到他人帮助的需要”——这个他人最早是母亲——以消除挫折的来源。愤怒是“为吸引关注所做出的最大努力”，而且……它应当被看成是一种对冷漠行为的抗议，而不是以毁灭母亲为目标，愤怒会引发自体（self）的至关重要的反应。

admints

http://www.answers.com/topic/psy ... ts-of-love-and-hate

Ian Dishart Suttie (1989-1935) wrote the book ‘The Origins of Love and Hate’, which was first published in 1935; a few days after his death. He was born in Glasgow and was the third of four children. His father was a general practitioner and Ian Suttie and both of his brothers and his sister became doctors as well. He qualified from Glasgow University in 1914. After a year he went into psychiatry.

Although his work has been out of print in England for some years, it is still relevant today. It has been often cited and makes a contribution towards understanding the more difficult aspects of family relationships and friendships. He can be seen as one of the first significant object relations theorists and his ideas anticipated ideas put forward by modern self psychologists.

Although Ian Suttie was working within the tradition set by Freud, there were a lot of concepts of Freud’s theory he disagreed with. First of all, Suttie saw sociability, the craving for companionship, the need to love and be loved, to exchange and to participate, to be as primary as sexuality itself. And in contrast with Freud he didn’t see sociability and love simply as a derivative from sexuality. Secondly, Ian Suttie explained anxiety and neurotic maladjustment, as a reaction on the failure of finding a response for this sociability; when primary social love and tenderness fails to find the response it seeks, the arisen frustration will produce a kind of separation anxiety. This view is more clearly illustrated by a piece of writing of Suttie himself: ‘Instead of an armament of instincts, latent or otherwise, the child is born with a simple attachment-to-mother who is the sole source of food and protection… the need for a mother is primarily presented to the child mind as a need for company and as a discomfort in isolation’.

Ian Suttie saw the infant as striving from the first to relate to his mother, and future mental health would depend on the success or failure of this first relationship (object relations). Another advocate of the object relations paradigm is Melanie Klein. Object relations was in contrast with Freud’s psychoanalysis. The advocates of this object relations paradigm all, in exception of Melanie Klein, held the opinion that most differences in individual development that are of importance for mental health could be traced to differences in the way children were treated by their parents or to the loss or separation of parent-figures. In the explanation of the love and hate relationship by Ian Suttie, the focus, not surprisingly, lies in relations and the social environment. According to Suttie, Freud saw love and hate as two distinct instincts. Hate had to be overcome with love, and because both terms are seen as two different instincts, this means repression. In Suttie’s view however, this is incompatible with the other Freudian view that life is a struggle to attain peace by the release of the impulse. These inconsistencies would be caused by leaving out the social situations and motives. Suttie saw hate as the frustration aspect of love. “The greater the love, the greater the hate or jealousy caused by its frustration and the greater the ambivalence or guilt that may arise in relation to it.” Hate has to be overcome with love by the child removing the cause of the anxiety and hate by restoring harmonious relationships. The feeling of anxiety and hate can then change back into the feeling of love and security. This counts for the situation between mother and child and later for following relationships.

In Suttie’s view, the beginning of the relationship between mother and child is a happy and symbiotic one as well. This happy symbiotic relationship between mother and baby can be disrupted by for example a second baby or the mother returning to work. This makes the infant feel irritable, insecure and anxious. This would be the start of the feeling of ambivalence: feelings of love and hate towards the mother. The child attempts to remove the cause of the anxiety and hate to restore the relationship (retransforming). This retransforming is necessary, because hate of a loved object (ambivalence) is intolerable.