——莉丝贝·玛尔谢访谈录
翻译：CHATGPT-o1
校对：常邵辰
小编导读：
走进躯体发展的世界
在身体心理治疗领域，Bodynamic体系由丹麦躯体心理治疗师莉丝贝·玛尔谢（Lisbeth Marcher）于上世纪七十年代创立，至今已成为欧洲新一代身体治疗中具有重要影响力的整合性范式。本公众号此前已系统介绍了Bodynamic中诸如“身体结”、“儿童动觉发展”及“肌肉的心理功能”等核心概念。在此基础之上，我们将为大家带来这一重要专题系列：「Bodynamic创始人莉丝贝·玛尔谢访谈录」
本系列内容整理自1991年玛尔谢与家庭治疗师彼得·伯恩哈特（Peter Bernhardt）的深度对话，原刊于美国身体心理治疗专业期刊。在这一访谈中，玛尔谢不仅清晰阐述了Bodynamic与经典赖希学派及新赖希学派在理论根基与临床实践中的区别，更提出了若干超越传统身体心理治疗范式的重要理念：
以“相互联结（Mutual Connection）”为人类基本驱力，重新定位了身心发展的动力方向；
强调“躯体资源（Somatic Resource）”的唤醒与整合，而不仅限于创伤宣泄或身体表征的解析；
提出发展性动作与肌肉响应模式如何成为个体心理动力的身体载体，并建构了一套基于发展心理学与躯体体验的精细诊断系统；
将“自性化”（Individuation）与“联结”视为同一发展进程的两面，在身体工作中实现个体性与关系性的统一。
本系列推文将以分期连载的方式呈现这一访谈的完整译文，若您关注以下议题：
身体如何编码个体发展经验；
躯体资源与心理防御结构的交互机制；
发展性创伤在肌肉张力模式中的表现；
身体觉察在治疗整合中的作用；
那么本系列将为您提供来自Bodynamic体系的系统回应。
Because of new research into child development, the developmental perspective has captured the attention of the therapeutic community for the last fifteen years, and it is transforming the way therapy is being carried out. Most schools of body psychotherapy have also been deeply impacted by this shift, but most have had to rely on theories that address primarily psychological development to inform their work. In this interview, I discuss the formation of a truly somatically based theory of human development with its founder, Lisbeth Marcher. While this theory complements the ideas of Mahler, Stern, and other modern developmental theorists, it has also arrived at unique conclusions about the nature of being human.
由于对儿童发展的新研究，在过去十五年里，“发展”这一视角引起了治疗界的高度关注，并正在改变治疗的实施方式。大多数躯体心理治疗（body psychotherapy）流派也在这一变革中受到了深远影响，但它们主要依赖关注心理发展的理论来指导临床工作。在这次访谈中，莉丝贝·玛尔谢（Lisbeth Marcher）讨论了一个真正基于身体（somatic）的、人类发展的理论是如何形成的。尽管这一理论与马勒（Mahler）、斯特恩（Stern）以及其他现代发展理论家的观点相辅相成，但它在何为人类本质这一问题上也得出了自己独特的结论。
Marcher is a Danish body psychotherapist who has conducted her own extensive research into psychomotor development over the last twenty years. By testing the psychological content of each muscle independently of others, and by studying when each of these muscles first becomes activated in the sequence of psychomotor development, she has acquired enormous range and accuracy in interpreting body structure and process. She is comfortable on the one hand exploring intrauterine, birth, and early infant states, and on the other, having done original research on somatic aspects of peer and group relations, she is at ease exploring the territory of later childhood and adolescence, areas often ignored by other developmental theories. David Boadella, the noted Reichian scholar, has called her “the Scandinavian legacy of Wilhelm Reich” and goes on to say that her system, called Bodynamics, offers one of the most advanced character structure models to come out of the new generation of body therapies emerging in Europe.
玛尔谢（Marcher）是一位来自丹麦的躯体心理治疗师（body psychotherapist），在过去二十年里一直对心理-运动（psychomotor）发展进行广泛的研究。通过分别测试每一块肌肉所蕴含的心理内容（而不是将它们混在一起），并研究这些肌肉在心理-运动发展过程中的首次激活时间，她在对身体结构和身体过程进行解读时，获得了极为丰富的深度和准确度。她一方面能自如地探究子宫内、出生和婴儿早期的状态，另一方面由于对同伴和群体关系的躯体层面进行了原创性研究，也能轻松地探讨儿童晚期和青少年期的发展，这些阶段往往在其他发展理论中被忽视。著名的赖希学者（Reichian scholar）戴维·博德拉（David Boadella）称她为“威廉·赖希（Wilhelm Reich）在斯堪的纳维亚的传承”，并进一步指出她所创立的“躯体发展（Bodynamics）”体系，代表了新一代欧洲身体治疗流派中最先进的人格结构模型之一。
In this interview, we focused on what might be called the “metasomatics” of her theory, the over-arching ideas from which she works. One of these is her belief that the driving force in humans is the desire to be connected to others and to the larger oneness that surrounds us. She calls this the drive toward mutual connection and holds that the essential field for this connection resides in the body. Another central idea is that of somatic resource which relates to the potential integrating function of the psychomotor patterns, which she evokes in her clients. It is not enough, she says, to re-experience traumatic situations to heal them. We need then to go on and create a new psychomotor imprint and activate resources hidden in the body. I spoke with her as she was preparing a presentation of her work on rebirthing infants and children at the 1991 pre- and perinatal-psychology conference in Atlanta, Georgia:
本次访谈重点讨论了她理论中的“元躯体学（meta-somatics）”即她工作的宏观理念框架。其一是她相信，人类的驱动力来自与他人建立联结，以及与周围更大的“一体性”连接的渴望。她将其称为“走向相互联结的驱力（drive toward mutual connection）”，并认为这一联结的核心场域位于身体之中。另一个核心理念是“躯体资源（somatic resource）”，即“心理—运动模式中潜在的整合功能”，她在工作中通过激活这些模式来帮助来访者。她指出，仅仅重新体验创伤情境不足以治愈，人们需要进一步建立新的心理—运动印迹，并激活隐藏在身体中的资源。当时，我与她交谈时，她正准备在1991年乔治亚州亚特兰大市举办的“产前与围产期心理学大会（Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Conference）”上展示她关于婴儿和再出生（rebirthing）的研究成果。
PB: As I see it, body psychotherapy has been in something of an identity crisis for the last years. Many therapists I know have distanced themselves from the emotional release work so prevalent in the sixties and seventies, and are moving away from working with the body to a more purely psychotherapeutic stance. On the other hand, I see a number of systems emerging that reeducate or retrain the body, which don’t really make the therapeutic—in the sense of resolving “psychological conflicts—a dearly stated goal. From what I know of your work, it seems that you have managed both to keep therapy at the heart of what you do, and to have kept the body at the center of the therapy process. How is this possible for you?
PB（Peter Bernhardt）问：在我看来，躯体心理治疗在过去几年似乎面临了一种身份危机。我认识的不少治疗师都与六七十年代盛行的那种“情绪宣泄工作”刻意拉开距离，转而更加偏向纯粹的心理治疗立场。另一方面，我又看到一些新的体系出现，它们主要是对身体进行再教育或再训练，却不太明确地把“解决心理冲突”当作治疗目标。据我对您工作内容的了解，您似乎既能把治疗（therapy）置于工作的核心，又能始终让身体处于治疗进程的中心地位。您是如何做到这点的？
LM: It comes from my belief that our basic drive is toward being connected to other people, what I have called the drive toward mutual connection. This means that people who come to me are ultimately struggling to be in relationship. Opening relationships is the essence of therapy, and of life, so I can’t abandon that goal. And I can’t separate my understanding of relationship from the body and body awareness. It is through body awareness that we sense ourselves in relation to the other. The more body awareness we can attain—which includes an awareness of sensation, energy, and emotion—the more we are able to establish deep connections to others. So these two things, mutual connection and body awareness, are inextricably linked for me. Therapy that doesn’t deal with body awareness will always lack something. Body awareness work that leaves out relationship will always lack something.
LM（Lisbeth Marcher）答：这是基于我对人类基本驱力的一种信念：我们最根本的驱力是和他人保持联结，也就是我所说的“追求相互联结（mutual connection）”。这意味着，来找我做治疗的人，归根结底都在为如何“处于关系之中”而挣扎。打开关系的大门是治疗（以及生命）的核心，我无法放弃这一目标。同时，我也无法把对于关系的理解与对身体和身体觉知（body awareness）的理解分割开来。只有通过身体觉知——其中包含对感觉（sensation）、能量以及情绪（emotion）的觉察——我们才能感受到自己与他人之间的联系。正因如此，相互联结和身体觉知在我看来是密不可分的。若一场治疗忽视了身体觉知，那就会缺失某些重要内容；若只做身体觉知而不处理关系，也同样会有所欠缺。
PB: Your idea of mutual connection seems to have something in common with Reich’s idea of two energy streams messing—which he called cosmic superimposition—during the mastic pulsation. Is it similar?
PB问：您所说的“相互联结”听起来有点像赖希所提的“两个能量流在有机脉动中彼此交汇”（他称之为“宇宙叠加”）那种概念。是否类似？
LM: I always felt that Reich was wrong to make the sexual experience the core of his idea of relationship. He, like Freud, took sexual energy to be the primary drive inside us. I don’t agree. To me, the human experience is much broader than that. I feel it took him down a certain path that he got stuck in—everyone running around trying to have the most intense orgasm, missing all the mutual connection around them. But it would be a mistake to make a caricature out of Reich, to simplify his idea too much. He was really the first to come up with a truly integrated therapy including the body, and his ideas are very important, very strong. And of course, sexuality and the orgasm are profound forms of connectedness and are key aspects to any therapy.
LM答：我一直觉得，赖希把“性体验”作为其“关系”观念的核心，这是不恰当的。他跟弗洛伊德一样，把性能量视作我们内在的主要驱力。我不同意这一点。对我来说，人类的体验远比这更广阔。我觉得，这带领赖希走上了一条他自己也出不来的岔路——弄得大家都在忙着追求更强烈的“高潮”，却忽视了周围其实处处都有相互联结。话虽如此，要是把赖希的理论过度简化成一个漫画版的描述，那也不妥。他确实是第一个提出“真正整合身体”的治疗者，他的许多理念十分重要、极具力量。当然，性和高潮本身是非常深刻的联结形式，也是任何治疗的关键面向之一。
Let me say too, that I don’t see myself as a Reichian so much as I see myself in a field that has been defined by Reich. So much of what has followed has been in response to his ideas. My own route to body psychotherapy was actually initially quite independent of Reich’s influence. It was only later that I took on and integrated his work, and understood where it could help my thinking.
还要说明的是，我并不把自己视为“赖希派”，而是将自己视作工作在赖希所开创的那个领域中。毕竟，在赖希之后出现的许多东西，多少都在回应着他的想法。我自己起先从事躯体心理治疗的路径，和赖希几乎没什么关联，只是后来才逐渐接受并整合了他的理论，理解到它能如何帮助我的思考。
PB: How is your work different from Reich’s and neo-Reichians’?
PB问：那么，您的工作与赖希和新赖希派（neo-Reichians）有何不同？
LM: Well, the core of Reich’s ideas is pulsation and establishing a free flow of energy in the body through releasing what he calls the “armor,” and also through activating the breathing system in a conscious way to build a charge of energy to evoke an energetic/emotional discharge. I don’t disagree with Reich’s concept of pulsation, but I don’t think the best way to get to it is through turning the tap on full-blast and seeing what happens. To me, that is not an integrated therapy. Essential parts of the self get split off in that kind of work. I see the same problem with Stan Grof’s Holotropic Breathwork. I admire what he has done in uncovering birth issues, but I don’t believe you need to hyper‑ventilate to work through birth trauma. In fact, what happens in that work—having experienced it myself and seen a number of others who have gone through it—is that so many issues from so many age levels come up that they can’t be fully integrated. In that sense, I am concerned about what therapy is—what actually helps a person change their life—not just have an intense, unintegrated experience. Therapy is a long term, slow process. We may get better at it, we may deepen it, we may extend its range, but we can’t shorten it by much.
LM答：赖希思想的核心是“脉动”（pulsation），以及通过释放他所谓的“铠甲（armor）”让能量在体内自由流动，同时还通过有意识地调整呼吸系统来积蓄能量，从而触发能量/情绪的宣泄。我并不否定赖希对于脉动的概念，但我不认为“把水龙头开到最大，看看会发生什么”就是实现它的最佳方式。对我来说，那样做无法整合地完成治疗；自我的某些核心部分会在这种方式中被分裂。我对斯坦·格罗夫（Stan Grof）开发的“整合呼吸（Holotropic Breathwork）”也有类似的看法：我很钦佩他对出生议题的探索和揭示，但我并不觉得要处理出生创伤就必须高频换气。事实上，我亲身体验过那种方式，也看过很多人进行体验，结果往往是，不同年龄层的问题会像烟花一样乱蹦，以至于没法充分整合。因此，我更关注“治疗究竟是什么”——也就是：到底是什么在真正帮助一个人改变生活，而不仅仅是经历一场“猛烈又未整合的体验”。治疗是一个长期、缓慢的过程。我们也许能让它更深入、更拓展，但大幅缩短它的历程并不现实。
PB: You said so many age levels come up in the holotropic breathing. Can you explain that?
PB问：您提到在整合呼吸中，会涌现很多不同年龄层的问题。能解释一下吗？
LM: Well, the way I work is to activate specifically those muscles related to an issue or psychomotor pattern, and not others, because I want to work with just the one issue at a time. This allows it to be experienced more fully and worked through. High activation breathing techniques activate all the muscles from all ages at once, which means that all these issues will pop up at random, like a roman candle, and you don’t really know what’s going on, where it’s coming from. Often the content is split off from the emotion, or something will emerge that is too far away from the person’s ability to handle it so that we dissociate from what has emerged. We come away thinking, “that was the deepest thing I’ve ever experienced,” and then we forget about it, or treat it as an icon; we worship emotionality per se, or Aliveness, or Orgasm, or Birth—big things larger than life, larger than our own self. We all want something to follow.
LM答：我工作的方法是只去激活与眼前议题或心理运动模式（psychomotor pattern）相关的肌肉，而不会牵涉其他部分，因为我要一次只处理一个问题。这样才能更完整、更深入地处理。而高强度的呼吸技术会把所有年龄段的肌肉一股脑儿同时调动出来，导致所有议题都随机蹦出来—就像放烟花，治疗师和来访者都搞不清这些内容是什么、它们来自哪里。很多时候，内在的内容会与情绪脱节，或者出现一些超出当事人承受力的东西，结果就只能对其进行解离（dissociation）。我们最后会觉得“哇，那是我经历过最深的体验”，然后就把它抛到脑后，或者把它当作一种偶像去膜拜——崇拜“情绪本身”、“鲜活（Aliveness）”、“高潮（Orgasm）”或“分娩（Birth）”之类庞然大物，而忽略了我们自身。我们都渴望找些东西来追随。
