The year 2020 will go down in human history as the year of the Coronavirus, whose multiple, severe, tragic, and revolutionary (hopefully not all bad) consequences we are not yet able – as I write this at the beginning of April – to evaluate. Through this issue of the journal, I want to propose to the reader a series of papers dealing with both our clinical work and the research work going on in psychoanalysis at the beginning of this new decade. As we will see, it is important for both dimensions to be at the same time pursued separately yet influence and enrich each other. A good demonstration of how our clinical work has to be constantly revisited and enriched through new points of view is represented by the article written by Isabelle Boulze-Launey and Alain Rigaud (Montpellier, France), “Alcohol and loneliness: In my solitude.” The authors revisit the psychopathology of alcoholic patients in the light of the clinical research work done by Jean Rainaut (1919–2009), which allowed him to catch these patients’ sense of isolation, and their early feeling of insecurity, close to that experienced in psychosis. This is the basis of the authors’ new psychotherapeutic approach to such a difficult category of patients, based on an attempt to help them establish a new relationship with themselves, along the line of what Donald Winnicott has called “the capacity to be alone.”What the authors call “the solitude of the alcoholic subject” and the “psychopathology of isolation” from which these patients suffer was for many decades a very hard challenge to address for any psychiatrist and any psychiatric institution, and it is a great relief to know that they can benefit from this new analytically oriented approach, based upon “a reactivation of the paternal function.” The second paper in this issue, “A psychoanalytic interpretation of bipolar disorder,” by Giancarlo Ventimiglia (Pisa, Italy), is also the result of a systematic work of clinical research whose previous stages have been well documented in our journal (see Ventimiglia, 2016). From this point of view, it is noteworthy that no new important contributions to the metapsychology of manic states have appeared since the 1970s. After having revisited the points of view of Freud, Klein, and a series of post-Freudian authors, Ventimiglia proposes his own metapsychological definition of mania as “a form of defense against the state of depression resulting from the narcissistic overidentification with a depressive object,” and documents it through the presentation of a detailed clinical case of his own. At variance with Klein, for whom mania represents a defense against the difficulties of reparation of the lost object, for Ventimiglia mania is a defense against the dissolution of the identificatory bond with it. As we all know, bipolar patients are very hard to treat psychoanalytically, and it is of crucial importance to find effective ways to understand them and work with them. A former editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association and former executive director of the Sigmund Freud Archives, Harold Blum (New York, USA) has dedicated most of his professional life to clinical research in psychoanalysis (Blum, 2016). This is well documented in his paper “Developmental and dynamic dimensions of hate, rage and violence,” in which he approaches the metapsychology of hate in the light of the very challenging clinical case of a mother whose severe childhood trauma resurfaced in a very dramatic way in connection with the birth of her first child, in the form of self-hate and a highly disruptive hatred for her baby. Since the Freud Symposium held in Pribor in August 2013, and through his collaboration with Eva Papiasvili, Harold Blum has become a good friend of our journal, and we are happy to publish his work. The same is true for the work of Siegfried Zepf (Saarbrücken, Germany), whose 2010 article “Consumerism and identity: Some psychoanalytic considerations” has been one of the most downloaded papers of our journal. The cultivation of a socially critical psychoanalysis in only one of his interests, as documented by his papers on Freudian metapsychology (see, for example, Zepf, 2015) and epistemology (Zepf, 2016). In the paper published in this issue, “Psychoanalytic treatments and empirical research on their efficacy: A commentary,” the author further develops the considerations formulated in this regard in his 2008 article “Naturalistic studies of psychoanalytic treatments: Some epistemological and methodological remarks.” According to Zepf, nomologically oriented research operates with

中文翻译：

---

2020 年精神分析：临床和研究方面

2020 年将作为冠状病毒在人类历史上载入史册，其多重、严重、悲惨和革命性的（希望不是全部都是坏的）后果我们还不能——正如我在 4 月初写的那样——评估. 通过本期杂志，我想向读者推荐一系列论文，这些论文涉及我们的临床工作和新十年开始时正在进行的精神分析研究工作。正如我们将要看到的，重要的是同时追求两个维度，但又相互影响和丰富。Isabelle Boulze-Launey 和 Alain Rigaud（法国蒙彼利埃）撰写的文章“酒精和孤独：在我的孤独中。” 作者根据 Jean Rainaut (1919-2009) 所做的临床研究工作重新审视了酒精患者的精神病理学，这使他能够捕捉到这些患者的孤立感，以及他们早期的不安全感，接近于那些经历过的在精神病。这是作者针对此类困难患者采用的新心理治疗方法的基础，基于尝试帮助他们与自己建立新的关系，遵循唐纳德·温尼科特 (Donald Winnicott) 所说的“独处的能力”。作者所称的“酗酒者的孤独”和这些患者所遭受的“孤立的心理病理学”几十年来一直是任何精神病学家和任何精神病机构都难以应对的挑战，知道他们可以从这种基于“重新激活父系功能”的新的分析导向方法中受益，真是令人欣慰。本期的第二篇论文“双相情感障碍的精神分析解释”，由 Giancarlo Ventimiglia（意大利比萨）撰写，也是一项系统性临床研究工作的结果，其先前阶段已在我们的期刊中得到详细记录（参见 Ventimiglia， 2016）。从这个角度来看，值得注意的是，自 1970 年代以来，对躁狂状态的元心理学没有出现新的重要贡献。在重新审视了弗洛伊德、克莱因和一系列后弗洛伊德作家的观点之后，文蒂米利亚提出了他自己对躁狂症的元心理学定义，作为“一种防御因自恋过度认同抑郁对象而导致的抑郁状态的形式”，并通过他自己的详细临床案例进行记录。与克莱因不同，对克莱因而言，躁狂症代表着对丢失物品的修复困难的防御，而文蒂米利亚躁狂症则是对与它的身份联系的解散的一种防御。众所周知，双相患者很难通过精神分析治疗，找到有效的方法来理解他们并与之合作至关重要。美国精神分析协会杂志的前主编和西格蒙德·弗洛伊德档案馆的前执行主任，哈罗德·布鲁姆（纽约，USA) 的大部分职业生涯都致力于精神分析的临床研究 (Blum, 2016)。这在他的论文“仇恨、愤怒和暴力的发展和动态维度”中有详细记录，在这篇论文中，他根据非常具有挑战性的临床案例来探讨仇恨的元心理学，她的严重童年创伤以非常戏剧性的方式重新浮出水面。与她的第一个孩子的出生有关，表现为自我憎恨和对婴儿的高度破坏性憎恨。自 2013 年 8 月在普里博尔举行的弗洛伊德研讨会以来，通过与伊娃·帕皮亚斯维利的合作，哈罗德·布鲁姆成为我们期刊的好朋友，我们很高兴发表他的作品。Siegfried Zepf（德国萨尔布吕肯）的工作也是如此，他在 2010 年发表的文章“消费主义和身份：一些精神分析方面的考虑”一直是我们期刊下载次数最多的论文之一。正如他关于弗洛伊德的元心理学（见，例如，Zepf，2015）和认识论（Zepf，2016）的论文所记录的那样，只在他的一个兴趣中培养社会批判精神分析。在本期发表的论文“心理分析治疗及其功效的实证研究：评论”中，作者进一步阐述了他在 2008 年发表的文章“精神分析治疗的自然主义研究：一些认识论和方法论评论”中提出的考虑。根据 Zepf 的说法，以规范为导向的研究与 正如他关于弗洛伊德元心理学（参见，例如，Zepf，2015）和认识论（Zepf，2016）的论文所记录的那样。在本期发表的论文“心理分析治疗及其功效的实证研究：评论”中，作者进一步阐述了他在 2008 年发表的文章“精神分析治疗的自然主义研究：一些认识论和方法论评论”中提出的考虑。根据 Zepf 的说法，以规范为导向的研究与 正如他关于弗洛伊德元心理学（参见，例如，Zepf，2015）和认识论（Zepf，2016）的论文所记录的那样。在本期发表的论文“心理分析治疗及其功效的实证研究：评论”中，作者进一步发展了他在 2008 年发表的文章“精神分析治疗的自然主义研究：一些认识论和方法论评论”中提出的考虑。根据 Zepf 的说法，以规范为导向的研究与 一些认识论和方法论的评论。” 根据 Zepf 的说法，以规范为导向的研究与 一些认识论和方法论的评论。” 根据 Zepf 的说法，以规范为导向的研究与