Quartz 5

concept-holding-going-on-being

26 min read

抱持与持续存在（holding, going-on-being）

类型: concept
创建时间: 2026-08-29
最后更新: 2026-08-29
主来源: govrin-interpretation、ogden-ontological-psychoanalysis、eshel-withness

摘要

抱持（holding）与持续存在（going-on-being）是唐纳德·温尼科特（Donald Winnicott）为精神分析引入的一对核心概念，它们把治疗行动的重心从「分析师说出什么」彻底移到了「分析师提供什么样的环境」。在 Govrin 的划分中，这标志着创伤疗愈传统对真理探求传统的反叛：治疗的目标不再是让病人认回被否认的无意识真理，而是修复存在的基本连续性——温尼科特称为 going-on-being，一种可被环境失败击碎的东西。

这对概念的意义在于其激进的存在论排序：持续存在先于「做」（doing）。它不是自我觉知的一种形式，而是自我觉知得以可能的前提；它不是有待解释的内容，而是解释得以生效的条件。托马斯·奥格登（Thomas Ogden）正是在此基础上把温尼科特（与比昂）确立为本体论精神分析的主要奠基人，与弗洛伊德—克莱因的认识论精神分析相对立。

本页还需处理三个技术性问题：抱持与比昂**涵容（containment）**的异同（涵容强调转化 β元素，抱持强调维持存在不被中断）；抱持在退行至依赖（regression to dependence）案例中的极端临床形态；以及一个必须如实交代的事实——本批资料并未涉及字面意义上的身体接触式抱持（详见第六节）。

一、定义：持续存在是什么

Govrin 在对比两种治疗传统时给出了本组文献中最直接的定义：

The trauma healing tradition, by contrast, seeks to facilitate what Winnicott (1954) called “going-on-being,” that is, the basic continuity of existence that environmental failure can shatter.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「From Truth-Seeking to Trauma Healing」

这一定义包含三个要点：**（一）它是存在的连续性，而非认知的内容；（二）它可能被环境失败击碎——即它不是自生自足的，而是依附于环境的；（三）**因此治疗的目标也随之改写：

The goal is not primarily self-knowledge but the capacity for authentic living and creative engagement with reality.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

奥格登则从语言形式上抓住了这一概念的革命性。他指出温尼科特几乎每篇论文都在命名此前从未被 analytic literature 承认过的存在状态，并特别分析了 going on being 这个短语的语法：

Winnicott, in almost every paper he wrote, introduces and describes states of being not previously recognized in the analytic literature, for instance, the state of “going on being” (Winnicott 1949, p. 245), a phrase that is all verb (verbal noun) and devoid of a subject, thus capturing something of a very early subjectless state of being

— Ogden, Ontological，第二节「II. BEING ALIVE, FEELING ALL THE SENSE OF REAL」

这是对「持续存在先于做」最精确的技术论证：整个短语全是动词性的，且没有主语。它不是「某人在做某事」，而是一种尚无主体的、无主语的存在之流。奥格登在同一节还列举了温尼科特命名的另外两种存在状态——母亲在被婴儿摧毁的同时存活（Winnicott 1969），以及原初母性贯注（primary maternal preoccupation）（Winnicott 1956）——它们共同构成一组「主体尚未成形时」的心理事实。

值得注意的是奥格登把这一概念与比昂的 α元素直接勾连：

alpha-elements, which comprise components of subjectless being, much like Winnicott’s “going on being.”

— Ogden, Ontological，第三节「III. BION’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO」

【综合】两位理论家在此汇合：比昂的 α元素是「思维与做梦的零件」，其性质正是无主体的存在组分；温尼科特的持续存在是同一层次的现象。这是奥格登把两人并列为本体论精神分析奠基人的实质理由，而不只是历史叙述。

二、环境性供给，而非诠释性洞见

Govrin 用一段密集的对照刻画了两种治疗文化的分歧，其中「抱持」是区分性标志之一：

the former approach the patient’s communications with suspicion, searching for hidden meanings, while the latter believe and validate the patient’s experience; the former carefully avoid any display of reassurance or comfort, while the latter embrace, contain, and hold

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

这段对照的关键在于：抱持不是「在诠释之外另加的温情」，而是对诠释之认识论姿态的否定——前者怀疑交流、搜寻隐藏意义，后者相信并确认病人的经验。Govrin 在第四章结论中把分析师的专业能力从「诠释技艺」重新定义为环境性调谐（environmental attunement）：

Rather than interpretive virtuosity, it requires what we might call “environmental attunement”—the capacity to provide the kinds of relational conditions within which the patient’s own developmental processes can resume.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「Conclusion」

并强调这比古典技术更苛刻，而非更宽松：

This is more demanding, not less, than classical technique because it requires the analyst to function as both a separate person and as part of the patient’s developmental matrix simultaneously.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「Conclusion」

温尼科特为此发展出一套临床鉴别术：判断哪些病人的发展停滞发生在符号化能力成形之前，因而诠释不仅无用，而且有害。

The analyst’s task becomes not interpretation but the provision of conditions within which such basic psychological equipment might finally develop.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「The Art of Clinical Discrimination」

The analyst must diagnose not merely what is unconscious but what is developmentally possible, adjusting technique not to theoretical preference but to the patient’s actual psychological capacities.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「The Art of Clinical Discrimination」

三、「不诠释而存活」：侵犯（impingement）的反向定义

抱持最清晰的临床定义是否定性的：它等于不去做什么。Govrin 复述的厌食症案例是标准例证。病人多年只谈身体经验——腹痛、有物体从体内掉出的感觉、文件柜锐利的边缘造成剧烈身体痛苦——而分析师在此阶段的功能不是诠释：

The analyst’s role during this phase was not to interpret but to survive—to provide an environment within which such primitive communications could be sustained without forcing premature integration.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「Language and the Limits of Interpretation」

「不诠释而存活（not to interpret but to survive）」是本页最重要的技术表述。而之所以如此，是因为过早的符号化本身就是一种侵犯（impingement）：

Any attempt to translate bodily symptoms into emotional language would have constituted what Winnicott called “impingement”—an environmental failure that reproduces the original trauma.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

【综合】这给出了抱持与侵犯的循环定义：侵犯即环境失败，而环境失败即是对持续存在的打断；抱持因此不是「给予某物」，而是「不中断」。这与真理探求传统形成尖锐对立——在那里，诠释是用来打破防御的；在这里，诠释若时机不当，本身就是创伤的复演。

四、退行至依赖：抱持的临床极端形态

温尼科特把抱持推到极限的地方，是他刻意延长会谈、鼓励退行的做法：

Winnicott, more than any of his contemporaries in the United Kingdom, frequently explored the use of prolonged analytic sessions, deliberately creating a space where patients were encouraged to regress.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

其目的被 Govrin 明确陈述为预防崩溃：

Often, he and his patient would plan these extended sessions several months ahead, knowing that such an approach could help the patient to hold off an impending psychological breakdown (Bollas, 2013).

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

在这一光谱的当代末端，奥夫拉·埃谢尔（Ofra Eshel）把抱持明确写入退行至依赖的治疗技术序列。她处理严重恋物—受虐倒错的病人 P. 时，主张倒错本身应被读为早期母性—环境失败造成的需求情境，而非操纵性的见诸行动：

I pointed out the fundamental function of the evolving process of therapeutic regression in Balint’s and especially Winnicott’s terms in the analysis of the perverse patient—namely, to understand it primarily as a situation of need resulting from an early maternal-environmental failure (rather than manipulative acting out), with the ensuing treatment priorities of holding, analytic reliability, and attentiveness to the patient’s need states and dependence.

— Eshel, Withness，临床例证（CLINICAL ILLUSTRATION）

并给出退行至依赖的完整机制陈述：

Thus, in Winnicottian terms of regression, the analyst’s interconnected “presencing” can be seen as enabling the transformation of the patient’s withdrawal and massive self-defensive organization—in this context, the perversion—into regression to dependence in treatment, which carries with it a new opportunity for correcting the patient’s past experiences and for emotional development (Winnicott 1954b, 1964, 1988).

— Eshel, Withness，临床例证

这里「抱持」与「分析的可靠性」「对病人需求状态与依赖的留意」三项并列，构成治疗优先级的清单，而不是情绪氛围的描述。埃谢尔引温尼科特为依赖本身提供了存在论基础：

the ego cannot organize against environmental failure in so far as dependence is a living fact

— Eshel, Withness，临床例证（引 Winnicott, 1974, p. 103）

而在治疗的最深时刻，埃谢尔把温尼科特的「除非触及谷底」命题改写为抱持中的共在：

there is no end unless the bottom of the trough has been reached, unless the thing feared has been experienced in a compassionate holding, within the analyst’s “presencing” and interconnecting with the patient’s gripping, unbearable agony, devastation, and death. Analyst-and-patient t(w)ogether there, with-in.

— Eshel, Withness，CONCLUDING THOUGHTS（引 Winnicott, 1974, p. 105）

五、与比昂「涵容」的异同

这是本页最需要精细分辨的地方。两者都在处理「病人无法自行处理的经验」，但机制的矢量与终点不同。

共同点：奥格登把二者归为同一阵营，理由是他们都不以理解无意识意义为首要目标：

I do not view Winnicott and Bion as object-relations theorists (reference to internal object relationships is rare in the work of both of these authors). They are not primarily concerned with understanding and interpreting the pathological internal object relationships in which the patient is ensnared.

— Ogden, Ontological，第四节「IV. ONTOLOGICAL PSYCHOANALYSIS AND OBJECT-RELATIONS THEORY」

for Winnicott and Bion, the most fundamental human need is that of being and becoming more fully oneself

— Ogden, Ontological，第四节

差异点（一）：涵容的目标是「转化」，抱持的目标是「不中断」。 Govrin 对比昂机制的概括通篇是代谢性动词——承受（bear）、代谢（metabolize）、转化（transform）：

Bion’s own clinical failure crystallized his conviction that interpretation is inseparable from containment: to speak effectively at the right moment, the analyst must first suffer, bear, and metabolize the patient’s unbearable states, transforming what would otherwise remain destructive evacuations into the beginnings of meaning.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第三章

其失败形态则是拒绝接收：

The true error, Bion insists, lay in his misinterpretation: he had treated the patient’s projection as aggression, whereas in fact it signaled an urgent appeal for survival through containment

— Govrin, Interpretation，第三章

对应到温尼科特，失败形态不是「拒绝接收」，而是过早符号化（侵犯）——即不是收不进来，而是进来了却被打断、被翻译得太快。

差异点（二）：涵容有明确的加工装置（α功能），抱持没有。 比昂从 β元素到 α元素的路径是可描述的；温尼科特的抱持则没有对应的加工理论——它只是「环境在那里，且没有中断」。

差异点（三）：二者的终点不同。 涵容的终点是意义与做梦的能力（见 concept-containment-reverie-alpha）；抱持的终点是持续存在本身，意义是副产品。

第三种立场（必须记录）： 埃谢尔引 Smith 评格林（Green）指出，「在（being）」这一维度超出抱持与涵容两者：

“Green leads us to realize that… [this] is much more than either holding or containing” (Smith 2010, p. 3)

— Eshel, Withness，开篇（WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE 一节）

六、⚠️ 本批资料未涉及之处：字面身体接触的抱持

检索记录（如实标注）：本页曾系统检索是否存在「抱持可以是字面身体接触」的文本依据，检索词包括 holding、holding environment、physically、held her / held him、in my arms、body contact、touched、arms of my psyche。结果如下：

  • holding 在 Govrin 全书中出现 5 处（第四章三处、第七章两处），全部为隐喻性或技术性用法（抱持环境、心理分析性抱持、抱持并存活攻击），无一处涉及身体接触。
  • holding 在 Ogden 全篇出现 0 次。
  • 在 Eshel 中，与「臂弯」相关的唯一一处是明确的隐喻：holding the dead body in the arms of my psyche（把死去的身体抱在我心灵的臂弯中），见本页第四节所引；另有病人 could not bear to be touched by a human hand（无法忍受被人手触碰），那是病人的症状，不是分析师的干预。
  • Govrin 第四章参考文献中列有温尼科特 Holding and Interpretation: Fragment of an Analysis（1986）一书名，但正文未展开其内容。

【推断】 温尼科特传统中「抱持在退行至依赖案例里可以是字面身体接触」这一命题，在本批资料中没有任何文本支撑。上述全部检索结果即为本批资料对该议题的全部着墨。此命题若需写入 Wiki，必须另引本批以外的原始文献（如温尼科特对 Harry Guntrip 的分析记录、或 Holding and Interpretation 原文）。本页不对其作任何外推。

七、与奥格登「本体论精神分析」的承继关系

这条承继线在两份文献中都被明确点名。奥格登自己的表述是：

I view Freud and Klein as the founders of a form of psychoanalysis that is epistemological in nature, and I consider Winnicott and Bion as the principal contributors to the development of ontological psychoanalysis.

— Ogden, Ontological，第一节「I. EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL PSYCHOANALYSIS」

Govrin 在第七章第四节复述并确认了这一归属：

Ontological psychoanalysis, championed by Donald Winnicott and Wilfred Bion, centers on being and becoming—on the struggle to come into existence as a person who feels real and alive to oneself.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第七章第四节「Part IV: From Knowing to Being—The Ontological Turn」

承继的具体环节是温尼科特那句被奥格登反复引用的自责——它把「抱持优先于诠释」落实为分析师的自律：

It appalls me to think how much deep change I have prevented or delayed … by my personal need to interpret. If only we can wait, the patient arrives at understanding creatively and with immense joy, and I now enjoy this joy more than I used to enjoy the sense of having been clever.

— Ogden, Ontological，第一节（引 Winnicott, 1969, p. 86）

【综合】承继关系的三个层次可以归纳为：（一）温尼科特命名了「无主体的存在状态」（持续存在）；（二）他据此把分析师的首要任务从「知道」改为「等待与提供环境」；（三）奥格登把这一临床直觉升格为与认识论精神分析并列的本体论维度，并用「名词与动名词之分」（play / playing）给出其语言学判据。完整的认识论／本体论之分见 concept-epistemological-vs-ontological。

八、抱持的扩展与制度化：博拉斯

在当代，把抱持推向制度化安排的是克里斯托弗·博拉斯（Christopher Bollas）。Govrin 在第七章第三节指出：

the analyst’s freedom enables complete devotion to creating a holding environment for patients whose psychic organization is collapsing, with this devoted containment itself functioning as interpretation.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第七章第三节「Part III: Crisis as Communication」

博拉斯的独特之处在于，他让诠释本身成为抱持的形式，而非抱持的替代物：

Each interpretive step constitutes part of what he calls “psychoanalytical holding.” People feel understood not simply through empathic presence but through the intelligent grasp the analyst has of why this particular person is in their particular predicament.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第七章第三节

他在濒临崩溃的案例中提出每日两次会谈且不额外收费，理由是经济压力本身会成为额外的环境失败：财务安排本身成为诠释的一部分（Govrin, Interpretation，第七章第三节）。

九、批评：抱持是否越出了精神分析的边界

Govrin 记录了瑞秋·布拉斯（Rachel Blass）的系统性批评，其中前两条直接针对抱持：

First, the transformation of the analyst from neutral interpreter to active, maternal figure providing holding and surviving attacks challenges traditional analytic neutrality.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「The Limits of Innovation」（引 Blass, 2012）

Second, his emphasis on non-symbolic, pre-object relating—“being together” rather than interpreting unconscious material—represents a fundamental departure from established technique.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「The Limits of Innovation」（引 Blass, 2012）

第三条关乎学科边界：精神分析与支持性心理治疗的界线被模糊（Govrin, Interpretation，第四章，引 Blass, 2012）。Govrin 也记录了温尼科特一方的前提——「有时是诠释，有时是抱持」：

Sometimes this means interpretation, sometimes holding, sometimes surviving the patient’s use of the analyst as a transitional object.

— Govrin, Interpretation，第四章「Conclusion」

⚠️ 矛盾标注
议题：抱持（holding）究竟是最高层级的治疗因素，还是被更根本的东西统摄的下位功能？
A 方立场：埃谢尔——抱持与涵容、保护并列，是「临在（presencing）」这一更高阶品质之下的诸功能之一——「It is a primary quality of presence, a multiple-function presence or deep availability that focuses on experience-near attunement, receptive capacity, holding, containing, and protection, rather than proffering interpretations of the analytic relationships and especially of patient–analyst separateness」（Eshel, Withness，WHAT KIND OF ANALYTIC PRESENCE 一节）；并明言「I believe that, while “presencing” involves the above capacities and functions, the experience of “presencing” is a quality that is superordinate to these capacities and functions and must be considered an aspect of the analytic experience in its own terms」（同上）
B 方立场：格林（经 Smith 转述）——「在」这一维度本身多于抱持与涵容二者之和——「“Green leads us to realize that… [this] is much more than either holding or containing” (Smith 2010, p. 3)」（Eshel, Withness，开篇）
备注：两方其实共享一个判断——抱持不是终点。分歧只在于：埃谢尔把抱持置于「临在」之下作为其构成功能之一（层级模型），格林则把「在」与抱持／涵容视为不同性质的东西（范畴模型）。这一分歧在文献内部未被调和，但它对技术的影响是一致的：抱持不能被当作可独立操作的技术单元。另需注意，温尼科特本人（经 Govrin 转述）持第三种更实用的立场——抱持与诠释是按发展需要轮换的选项，而非层级关系。

关键引文

  1. The trauma healing tradition, by contrast, seeks to facilitate what Winnicott (1954) called “going-on-being,” that is, the basic continuity of existence that environmental failure can shatter.
    — Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

  2. a phrase that is all verb (verbal noun) and devoid of a subject, thus capturing something of a very early subjectless state of being
    — Ogden, Ontological，第二节

  3. The analyst’s role during this phase was not to interpret but to survive—to provide an environment within which such primitive communications could be sustained without forcing premature integration.
    — Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

  4. Any attempt to translate bodily symptoms into emotional language would have constituted what Winnicott called “impingement”—an environmental failure that reproduces the original trauma.
    — Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

  5. Thus, in Winnicottian terms of regression, the analyst’s interconnected “presencing” can be seen as enabling the transformation of the patient’s withdrawal and massive self-defensive organization—in this context, the perversion—into regression to dependence in treatment, which carries with it a new opportunity for correcting the patient’s past experiences and for emotional development (Winnicott 1954b, 1964, 1988).
    — Eshel, Withness，临床例证

  6. Rather than interpretive virtuosity, it requires what we might call “environmental attunement”—the capacity to provide the kinds of relational conditions within which the patient’s own developmental processes can resume.
    — Govrin, Interpretation，第四章

关联

引用来源

  • govrin-interpretation — 第四章（温尼科特）全章为「持续存在」「环境性调谐」「侵犯」的主要来源；第七章第三节（博拉斯）与第四节（本体论转向）提供抱持的当代扩展；第三章提供涵容侧对照引文
  • ogden-ontological-psychoanalysis — 第二节提供 going on being 的语言学分析；第一、四节提供温尼科特作为本体论精神分析奠基人的归属判断
  • eshel-withness — 临床例证一节提供退行至依赖与抱持作为治疗优先项的表述；开篇一节提供临在与抱持的层级关系；CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 提供「悲悯的抱持」表述
  • eshel-interconnectedness — 提供「临在」的定义性表述（本页第九节矛盾标注未直接引用，但为层级模型的同源佐证）

引文处理说明：原始 PDF 转 Markdown 时产生的三类排版伪影在引文中已按原刊印刷形式还原——断字连字符（intercon- nected → interconnected）、跨行断字被误插的斜体标记（reached*, un-* *less → reached, unless）、以及缺失空格（Winnicott 1949,p.245 → Winnicott 1949, p. 245）。Govrin 原文中标引年份的下划线标记 <u>…</u> 已去除。除此外未改动任何字词。

变更记录

Graph View

Backlinks