精神分析「詮釋」之概念研究：臨床實務與官方理論再連結之探究

精神分析的學派互有特色，風格各異，卻面臨一場無紀律的理論多元主義危機，因此二十世紀末，學者們陸續提出尋找共同元素或理論縮減等方案，來解決溝通困難或作出理論整合的可能；可惜在認識論或學科走向的分歧外，還有核心的敵對主義阻撓，故此，回歸臨床思考中去探究官方理論外的私人理論──內隱分析性知識──不同學派治療師之間具相似性的內隱臨床邏輯，了解精神分析知識的產生過程，重新連結理論與臨床間的差異，將是精神分析未來的基礎。本研究參照Dreher的精神分析概念研究，先對主流官方理論學派的「詮釋」及「移情－反移情」概念作文獻分析，再藉現象學方法對精神分析臨床工作者作專家訪談，並將分析結果重新與官方理論對話。研究發現，受訪者們皆有一定內隱分析性知識，如詮釋作為試誤性思考的邀請、詮釋內容維度外，必然存有關係與情感維度以達致療效、分析的真相只是互為主體地共構之階段性真相等；至於理論與臨床間的距離，則是於長期治療中為克服困境而生的橋樑知識──源於與人格與驅力相關的本體知識──來連結。許多非官方觀點的研究結果皆被整理至一圖示中，示範了精神分析知識產生的歷程與架構。本研究提出再定義「詮釋」、「移情－反移情」等概念的理據與方式，指出共構的階段性真相中包含「共同－思考」的思考層面和「共同－處理」的情感與關係層面，並指出精神分析知識就是一再移置與反抗的歷程。最後，作出精神分析概念研究繼行的建議，以及應以「存差異，求關係」的方式開拓精神分析的未來。

關鍵字

內隱分析性知識；概念研究；概念整合；詮釋；精神分析

並列摘要

Different schools in psychoanalysis are charactered and diverged from each other, but there is a head-on crisis of undisciplined theoretical pluralism. Subsequently, from late 20th century, scholars advocated ways to solve the difficulty in communication or to make integration possible, by finding common elements or making theory-reduction therein. However, besides the disagreements about epistemology and disciplinary trend, the antagonism between schools leaves as the core obstruction. Therefore, to explore private theory beyond the official by concerning first in clinical thinking, namely the implicit psychoanalytic knowledge, this dissertation base on the implicit clinical logic which shared certain similarity between psychoanalytic therapists in different schools, aimed at a comprehension of the generation of psychoanalytic knowledge, and also relinking the discrepancy between official theory and clinical practice, as a foundation to psychoanalytic development. Referring to Dreher’s idea of psychoanalytic conceptual research, first a literature review is made on the concepts ‘interpretation’ and ‘transference-countertransference’ among several mainstream schools, then through the expert interviews with psychoanalytic practitioners, a result made by phenomenological analysis and would again dialogue with the previous official theories. This dissertation finds that all interviewees own certain implicit psychoanalytic knowledge: interpretation as an invitation of tentative thinking, a relational or affective dimension beyond the content in interpretation which leads to therapeutic efficacy, the analytic truth through intersubjective co-construction only served as a phased truth, etc. Moreover, the discrepancy between theory and clinical practice is relinked through conquering difficulties in chronic psychotherapy, in which a sort of bridged knowledge, derived from noumenon-knowledge related to personality and drive, is generated. Most results of unofficial discoveries have been collated into a graphic illustration which demonstrating the process and structure of the generation of psychoanalytic knowledge. In conclusions, this dissertation provides justifications and proposes ways to re-define the concept ‘interpretation’ and ‘transference-countertransference’, indicates the aspect of cogitation in ‘co-thinking’ and the aspect of affection and relation in ‘co-processing’ within a co-constructed phased truth, simultaneously, points out that psychoanalytic knowledge is a process with constant displacement and revolt. Finally, it makes suggestions to further conceptual research, and with the spirit of ‘reserving difference, seeking relationship’, the future of psychoanalysis is awaited to explore.