臨床／本土／文化心理學：尋語路（錄）

Looking for Ways to Meaning: A Note of Clinical-Local-Cultural Psychology

宋文里(Wen-Li Soong)

《應用心理研究》 34期 (2007/06) Pp. 75-112

摘要

這是一篇用語錄體作的研究紀要，討論如何用一種文化心理學的觀點來重述臨床／本土的心理學問題，而本文的前提是：我們（作為一個具有自主性的研究社群）可以從心理病理學和心理治療實踐的根本之處談起。作者認為：對於這個根本問題的敘述，不應是以回到傳統漢語來當作解決，而是先要從傳統漢語如何翻譯成現代漢語來著手，於是臨床／本土的問題（經過翻譯）就變成臨在／自身的問題。 從文化的心理病理學來說，當代漢語世界的失語症和新語症構成了講話、事情和意思的根本難題；從臨床實踐來說，正因為以觀察法為基礎的客觀心理學完全忽視了人在面對面的情境中所可能發生的存在之交互參與的本質為何，所以如何以解構的方式來離棄觀察法，乃成為一個心理學返身自問的問題。當我們自己要來為臨床／本土（臨在／自身）的問題講話時，會發現講話本身所涉及的言／語有兩個階序：講出話來，以及在回話時對於語言本身的注意，而使得文化的發生轉變成文化的理論問題；失語症的問題將在如新語症般跌跌躓躓的嘗試中尋求解決。 作者最後提出兩個臨床實踐的例子，說明「自我」和「他者」這兩個根本的語詞如何在摸索中出現。此兩例的臨床實踐過程和結果是交互參與的分析和討論。其實踐性質也許有些類似精神分析的現象，但又不盡如此，我們要用怎樣的心理學來重新吸收它？在本土心理學之後能發展出適當的文化心理學嗎？

關鍵字

臨床實踐 ； 文化心理學 ； 詮釋的分析 ； 意義

並列摘要

This research note discusses how we can use a culturalpsychological perspective to recount the clinical/local problem. The premise of this discussion is that we as an autonomous research community are able to start from a practice of psychotherapy. To restate this problem, we are not to return to any traditional discourse of the Chinese but to start anew from the modernized Chinese, and by this way we come across a problem of the presence of the self.
From the point of view of cultural psychopathology, contemporary Chinese speaking world is a world of aphasia and neologism, and its basic problem is a difficult problem of speaking of things and how its meaning comes about. A clinical practice is usually a practice of empirical observations. This objective psychology largely overlooks how the human persons exist in a face-to-face way and how their co-presence is a mutual interpenetration of being. Thus comes the deconstruction of the observation method. When we are now speaking for the locally presenting self, we speak in two orders: the speakingout and the attention of how we speak back. The cultural happening becomes the cultural theorization at the same time. The problem of aphasia is now a neologism on the way.
Two cases of this way-faring is presented here to illustrate how the two basic words ”self” and ”object” are being spoken out. The two cases look similar in a certain practice to psychoanalysis, yet they are not quite so. In what psychology are we to account for them?

並列關鍵字

clinical practice ； cultural psychology ； interpretive analysis ； meaning