英語論文で最近書き加えた部分。フロイトとジャネの論争は、結局現代に何を残したのか。
Aftermath of
Janet-Freud controversy
What was the result
of the controversy between Freud and Janet who presented strikingly different
and contradicting views? In his effort to make a bridge between Freud’s view of
repression and Janet’s view of dissociation, Dell makes a point that between
them, they described three of today’s major meanings of dissociation; (1)
Active dissociation. (2) Structural dissociation, and (3) automatisms (Dell,
2009, p733,734). What Dell indicates here is that
today’s clinicians rightly believe that (1) dissociation is an active and
defensive process, as Freud thought, but (2) the resulting cluster of
dissociated material and dissociated mental activity is structurally separated
from the main consciousness, unlike Freud, and (3) the dissociated material can
intrude into one’s main consciousness in a non-dynamic fashion, again unlike what
Freud believed.
Thus, despite that Freud
did care for using the concept of dissociation, “our contemporary understanding
of dissociation is deeply ‘infected’ by the concept of repression”, as Dell
aptly puts (p.732), especially in its active and defensive meaning. What I
would like to add to Dell’s view is that between Freud and Janet, it was not
settled as to what is split off (“repressed” for Freud, “dissociated” for
Janet), either sexual instinct as Freud implied, or memories of traumatic
events, as Janet might have thoughts. And more importantly, in the context of
the theme of this article, it remains unsettled as to whether splitting of
consciousness occurs as duplication
(Freud) or multiplication (Janet). However, so long as the point (1) of
Dell’s contention indicates that dissociation is believed to occur actively, as
Freud thought, it is rather considered as duplication
of consciousness that clinicians favored, even up till this modern era.
