你所见到的你才是真正的你

威廉·盖林

我记得内布拉斯卡州的金融家弗拉纳根神父曾公开宣称，他“从未遇到过一名坏孩子”。然而，我自己却遇到过相当多的坏孩子，这样看来，要么我们两人的经历有天壤之别，要么我们对“坏”的理解大不一样。我怀疑这两种可能性都不是，毋宁说神父所评价的是那“内在的人”，而我则根本不承认有所谓内在的人。

既然我们这些精神分析学家在无意中造成了这样的混乱，那我们中间至少也应有一个人站出来澄清一下。精神分析的数据本来只应是某种补充性的信息，不幸的是，现在它却常常被当作另一种、甚至是更高级的解释。这便导致了目前的主流倾向，认为“内在的”人才是真实的，而外在的人只不过是一个幻影，一个冒名顶替的家伙。

虽然精神分析在揭示人类行为下面的种种动机与目的方面是一种令人叹服的工具，但它的那一套解释对于判定这些行为的道德性质却几乎没有什么关系。
和放射学一样，精神分析也是一种用来透视人的神奇的新手段，但毕竟很少有人愿意把挂在客厅里的祖父画像换成一张呈现他头颅结构的X光片。人的内心的确展示了另一幅图景，但并不是更真实的图景。一个人也许并不总是他表现出来的那样，但他表现出来的样子始终是他的重要组成部分。一个人应当是他全部行为的总和。探究决定他行为的无意识因素，却对他外在的行为不闻不问，比完全忽略无意识的做法还要背谬。

库特·冯涅古特曾经说过，“你就是你装出来的那个样子。”这其实等于是说，你就是我们（所有人）眼中的那个样子，而不是你自己心目中的那个样子。
你仔细想想下面这种情形。一位九十岁的老人躺在临终的病榻上（犹太人的律法书一定会考虑到这样的情况吧？），为自己在一生中成功地骗过了世人而感到欣慰喜悦。九十年来，他一直把自己的邪恶天性掩饰得那么完美，瞒过了所有人的眼睛；九十年来，他一直装得彬彬有礼，和蔼善良，慷慨大度——竭力抑制住自己深知潜藏在心底的恶念，苦心孤诣地给自己打造一副温文尔雅、乐善好施的面具。终其一生，世人都被他蒙骗，相信他是个好人。我敢断言，这样一位“恶”人，天国一定会欢迎他。

同样的，谁也不要对我说，一个靠抢劫老妇人挣零花钱的年轻人“其实”是个好人。无论我把善的概念如何拓展，它都无法容纳这样一种改善自身处境的方式。

说某人在粗野的行为背后深藏着一颗纯金般的心，只是不被人知晓罢了，这样的话是毫无意义的——哪怕他的全部内脏都用纯金铸成。你最主要的部分就是你表现出来的那个你，而不是你希望成为的那个你，也不是你自我感觉中的那个你。

因此，别对我说你的动机如何善良，你的心灵如何敏感，你那未曾表示的爱其实如何深沉，也别向我讲述你那些冗长沉闷的心理个案——那套把戏无非是专门挖掘坏人内心之善、好人内心之恶，其结果无非是一种庸俗荒谬的无差别主义，仿佛外在的行为与内心的动机没有任何道德上的差异。

圣弗朗西斯在无意识里也许的确是在竭力抵制那极具破坏力的俄狄浦斯情结，并为之作出补偿，在这一点上，他和精心策划并将该冲动变成现实的阿提拉似乎没什么不同。但是，即便在无意识领域的相似性模糊了他们两人的界限，这种相似也没有任何重要性可言。
希特勒的那颗心位置是否正常，我毫不关心。研究他的无意识或许对理解他的行为有所帮助，但在定义他的行为性质时，绝不能用无意识来替换。
所谓内在的人只是一种幻想。如果它有助于你理解他人，你当然可以继续幻想下去。你尽可以保护它，珍惜它，拥抱它，只是不要把它呈给别人，作为评价的依据，也不可以在它的基础上来执行惩罚。

和其他的幻想一样，它只对你自己有用。在这个我们共同拥有的真实世界里，它却没有一席之地。那些性格特征、那些态度、那些行为——那个从你周身长出来的怪异的、与你格格不入的东西——才是真正的你！

What You See Is the Real You

William Gaylin

It was, I believe, the distinguished Nebraska financier father Edward J. Flanagan who professed to having “never met a bad boy.” Having, myself, met a remarkable number of bad boys, it might seem that either our experience were drastically different or we were using the word “bad” differently. I suspect neither is true, but rather the father was appraising the ‘inner man,” while I, in fact, do not acknowledge the existence of inner people.
Since we psychoanalysts have unwittingly contributed to this confusion, let one, at least, attempt a small rectifying effort. Psychoanalytic data—which should be viewed as supplementary information—is, unfortunately, often viewed as alternative (and superior) explanation. This has led to the prevalent tendency to think of the “inner” man as the real man and the outer man as an illusion or pretender.
While psychoanalysis supplies us with an incredibly useful tool for explaining the motives and purposes underlying human behavior, most of this has little bearing on the moral nature of that behavior.
Like roentgenology, psychoanalysis is a fascinating, but relatively new, means of illuminating the person. But few of us are prepared to substitute an X-ray of Grandfather’s head for the portrait that hangs in the parlor. The inside of the man represents another view, not a truer one. A man may not always be what he appears to be, but what he appears to be is always a significant part of what he is. A man is the sum total of all his behavior. To probe for unconscious determinants of behavior, ignoring his overt behavior altogether, is a greater distortion than ignoring the unconscious completely.
Kurt Vonnegut has said, “You are what you pretend to be,” which is simply another way of saying, you are what we (all of us) perceive you to be, not what you think you are.
Consider for a moment the case of the ninety-year-old man on his deathbed (surely the Talmud must deal with this?) joyous and relieved over the success of his deception. For ninety years he has shielded his evil nature from public observation. For ninety years he has affected courtesy, kindness, and generosity—suppressing all the malice he knew was within him while he calculatedly and artificially substituted grace and charity. All his life he had been fooling the world into believing he was a good man. This “evil” man will, I predict, be welcomed into the kingdom of Heaven.
Similarly, I will not be told that the young man who earns his pocket money by mugging old ladies is “really” a good boy. Even my generous and expansive definition of goodness will not accommodate that particular form of self-advancement.
It does not count that beneath the rough exterior he has a heart—or, for that matter, an entire innards—of purest gold, locked away from human perception. You are for the most part what you seem to be, not what you would wish to be, nor, what you believe yourself to be.
Spare me, therefore, your good intentions, your inner sensitivities, your unarticulated and unexpressed love. And spare me also those tedious psychohistories which—by exposing the goodness inside the bad man, and the evil in the good—invariably establish a vulgar and perverse egalitarianism, as if the arrangement of what is outside and what inside makes no moral difference.
Saint Francis may, in his unconscious, indeed have been compensating for, and denying, destructive, unconscious Oedipal impulses identical to those which Atilla projected and acted on. But the similarity of the unconscious constellations in the two men matters precious little, if it does not distinguish between them.
I do not care to learn that Hitler’s heart was in the right place. A knowledge of the unconscious life of the man may be an adjunct to understanding his behavior. It is not a substitute for his behavior in describing him.
The inner man is a fantasy. If it helps you to identify with one, by all means, do so; preserve it, cherish it, embrace it, but do not present it to others for evaluation, or, for that matter, for punishment or disapproval.
Like any fantasy, it serves your purposes alone. It has no standing in the real world which we share with each other. Those character traits, those attitudes, that behavior—that strange and alien stuff sticking out all over you—that’s the real you!

返回>>列表

关于的相关文章
无相关信息