精神分析在中国：一位中国分析师十五年的研究历程

——从文化冲突的提问到一个新的自体结构理论及其测量

2011年，钟杰在《International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies》上发表了一篇论文，标题是一个问题：与中国患者工作，中国文化与精神分析存在冲突吗？ 此时，他是北京大学心理与认知科学学院副教授，也是国际精神分析协会（IPA）在中国的第一批精神分析师候选人。

十五年后，围绕同一个问题，他完成了两部理论论文并在他的研究团队协助下完成一项量化研究。钟杰没有简单地回答“有冲突”或“没有冲突”。他的做法是把问题拆细：自恋和自体结构应该怎样理解？这些来自精神分析的概念能不能被测量？

一 、一个不太合时宜的问题

1990年代中后期，精神分析在中国再度热起来。这一次，不同于80年代第一次的思想热潮——仅是理论的引入，而是临床实践：培训、督导和临床实践体系逐步建立，精神分析 /心理动力治疗从业者和来访者(患者)都在增加。当时的讨论大多围绕“精神分析技术怎么学、怎么用、怎样训练和督导、怎样设置治疗框架？”这些临床主题展开。

在这一背景下，精神分析从一种学术思想进入临床实践，成为不少精神科和临床心理工作者关注的方向。

2000年，钟杰还在读博，被导师钱铭怡送到德中心理治疗学院（俗称：中德班），开始正式接触精神分析和心理动力治疗。

2003年博士毕业后，他留校任教并担任学系的科研秘书。也是在那几年，他反而从“精神分析热”里退了一步，先后做了两件对后来对他影响很大的事。

第一件，是2005年去香港中文大学访学，跟随梁耀坚教授学习心理病理学和临床心理评估。这段经历为他后来做量化临床研究打下了方法学基础。

第二件，发生在2007到2009年。在国家自然科学基金PPP项目支持下，钟杰两度前往德国法兰克福弗洛伊德研究院，跟随托马斯·普兰克斯研究员做精神创伤与代际传递研究。他也在这里学习如何把精神分析理论转化为可以研究、可以量化的问题。那段时间，他也成为了IPA中国委员会在中国发展的第一批“精神分析师候选人”，并开始接受德国培训分析师艾美格德–德塔班的培训分析训练（直到2015年结束）。

2011年，正在接受精神分析系统训练的钟杰发表了前面提到的那篇论文。他提出的并不是一个技术问题，而是精神分析最基本的假设能否套用到中国患者身上。

精神分析的理论和技术，预设对一个个体进行分析治疗的目的是：促进其心理发展朝着有清晰的自我边界迈进、走向“个体化”；治疗师在这个过程中，让患者自由联想的同时要及时处理好阻抗、移情和反移情，治疗目标也带有明显的个体化倾向。

但是，中国患者往往处在另一种文化语境和经验中：家庭本位、关系优先、表达更加含蓄，冲突也常常发生在超我内部。因此，精神分析与中国文化两者之间真的不会存在冲突吗？

在论文中，作者没有裁定谁对谁错，而是把这种张力放回临床现场：让这个冲突在案例中获得本真的体现。然而，这个理论问题一旦被清楚地提出来，就无法回避了。现在回头看，这篇论文像是钟杰后来研究路线的一个起点。

 

二、 从弗洛伊德和科胡特的分歧出发

自恋的争论，在精神分析学界持续了大半个世纪。

西格蒙德·弗洛伊德认为，自恋（Narcissism）是心理能量投向自我（Ego）。能量总量有限，投向自己多了，留给他人的自然就少。因此，自恋在他那里是一种需要被超越的原始心理状态。

海因茨·科胡特的看法则与弗洛伊德迥然不同。他认为自恋有自己的发展路线，成熟的自恋支撑着抱负、理想和创造力。许多自恋的痛苦，与一个人是否“太爱自己”关系不大，更多来自早年缺少被镜映和理想化的良好经验。

几十年来，弗洛伊德和科胡特常被摆成“二选一”。在精神分析学界，选边站几乎是一种默认的学术姿态。

2022年，经过14年训练和实践，钟杰从IPA中国委员会培训项目毕业，获得IPA认证分析师资格。他的毕业临床论文是《论一个自体结构的理论》。此后，他继续整理自己的思考。2023年，他发表了《论一个自体结构理论——第1部分：自恋的本质》（On a theory of self-structure—Part 1: The nature of narcissism），把自恋是一种单一状态，即“指向自我的力比多是多与少”的桎梏中解放出来，重新定义为：一个与自我组织有关的“心理能量密度”。

2026年，他发表第二部理论论文《论一个自体结构理论——第2部分：自体结构的理论维度》（On a theory of self-structure—Part 2: The theoretical dimensions of self-structure）。在这篇论文里，他把自体结构分成两条彼此独立的维度。一条是自体投注（self-cathexis），指心理能量投向自我的程度，承接弗洛伊德的自恋理论；另一条是自体空间需要（self-space need），指一个人维持自我完整性所需要的心理和关系空间，承接科胡特的理论。两者之比构成自体的密度。密度不同，形成“实体自恋”和“虚体自恋”两种基本自体形态。

论文中有一句话：“力比多和死本能并不冲突。它们的关系像道家所说的阴阳：互补，彼此依存，又在动态中维持平衡。”

这句话不只是为了给理论增加一点东方色彩，整部理论的结构本身就带有辩证性：两个看似冲突的命题可以各自成立，成为坐标系上的两条轴。

由此，钟杰提出一个更根本的主张：精神科诊断关注症状组合，自体理论关注更深层的自我组织，它们属于两个不同的维度系统。把二者混在一起，既会妨碍临床理解，也会妨碍科学测量。

 

三、 把自体结构变成可以测量的东西

当代临床心理学对科胡特自体心理学最常见的批评是：它临床内容丰富，却难以量化，也无法与现代人格心理学的主流研究对话。

2026年，钟杰所主持的人格与心理病理学研究团队，在《Frontiers in Psychiatry》上发表了一项关于自体结构的量化研究，直接回应了这一批评。团队开发的自体结构量表（SOSS）共有28个条目，包含四个一阶因子：积极自体、自我中心、理想化认同和脆弱自体。理论上，这四个因子分别负载于“自体投注”和“自体空间需要”两条高阶维度。

研究分两项进行，共使用四个独立样本、5,887名被试。总量表内部一致性α在0.795到0.816之间，两个月重测信度ICC=0.870；探索性结构方程模型支持四因子结构，跨性别测量不变性成立。效度证据也符合理论预期：自体投注与浮夸型自恋量表（NPI）相关更强；自体空间需要与脆弱型、病态型自恋（PNI）相关更强（r=0.644），其中脆弱自体因子与PNI的相关最高（r=0.622）。聚类分析识别出四类人群，它们分布在二维平面的不同区域。

这项研究没有急着给弗洛伊德和科胡特分出胜负，而是更深入的揭示了：两人其实分别抓住了“我”（self）的一部分。钟杰的自体结构理论，试图把这两部分放进同一个理论框架里，并用数据加以验证。

当然，研究团队也没有把论文写成“大功告成”。他们明确指出了局限：样本来自非临床人群，研究采用横断式自我报告，临床样本、纵向追踪和跨文化验证仍有待补上。把这些限制讲清楚，本身就是研究的一部分。

“目前，从这个科学问题的研究进展看，我相信它会把我们带向计算和神经精神分析这个分支。临床技术和方法的更新，会在这之后发生。”钟杰说。

四、 文化不是外包装

钟杰在第二篇理论论文中，以战国时代荆轲刺秦王的历史叙述开篇，把“空间”与和辻哲郎《风土》中“人在世界中的存在方式”、海德格尔的“在世存在”放在一起讨论。他想说明，“空间”作为自体结构的一个维度，并不只能从西方理论里推导出来，在东方思想传统中也有可以接上线索。

这种影响最终落在了方法论上：当“互补”和“辩证”成为处理理论冲突的方式，研究者就不必急着选边站。

沿这条线看，文化的位置一直在变。2011年，文化是问题本身：精神分析能不能适用于中国。到了2023年，它进入概念内部：当“自恋”被重新定义时，东方思想中的包容和辩证提供了“不必二选一”的思路。2026年，它又被引入到量化测量与中国临床情境：量表在中国普通人群中接受检验，案例也来自中国临床语境。 

 

五、 十五年后答案变得更具体

这十五年里，钟杰的研究不是靠头衔、项目或名声维持的，真正推动其前进的，是一个不断被追问的科学问题。

面对弗洛伊德和科胡特这样的学术权威，不去“选边站”并不轻松，甚至可能两边都不讨好。钟杰走的是一条独立的“渎神之路”：是让理论框架接受检验，把最终的判断交给临床和数据。

2011年他提出的那个问题，最终没有用一句“能”或“不能”收尾。十五年后，它变成了一套理论、一个科学测量工具及多组数据，另外加上了一份“研究局限性说明”。

十五年前，钟杰问的是中国文化与精神分析会不会冲突？今天的回答更谨慎、也更具体。这个冲突没有被一句判断消解，而成了可以去进行科学研究和测量、并正在被继续修正的科学问题：

人类的自我（self）是如何以及怎样被建立起来的？

附 资料来源

1. Zhong, J. (2011). Working with Chinese patients: Are conflicts between Chinese culture and psychoanalysis? International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 8(3): 218-226. DOI: 10.1002/aps.304

2. Zhong, J. (2023). On a theory of self-structure—Part 1: The nature of narcissism. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in China, 6(1/2): 15-36. DOI: 10.33212/ppc.v6.2023.15

3. Zhong, J. (2026). On a theory of self-structure—Part 2: The theoretical dimensions of self-structure. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in China, 9(1/2): 65-88. DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/429vt_v1

4. Li, X., Zhong, J., Fan S.S. et al. (2026). The construction and psychometric evaluation of the self-structure scale: A bidimensional model of self-structure. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17, Article 1942305. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1942305

 

（文：Echo，校对：Psymap）

 

文章链接：

The construction and psychometric evaluation of the self-structure scale: a bidimensional model of self-structure

Working_with_Chinese_Patients: Are_there_Conflicts_Between_Chinese_Culture_and_Psychoanalysis

On_A_Theory_of_Self-Structure_I_The_Nature_of_Narcissism

On_A_Theory_of_Self-structure_II_The_Theoretical_Dimensions_of_Self-Structure

 

Reconciling Freud and Kohut: A Decade-Long Program of Research on the Structure of the Self

 

A report on the work of Prof. Dr. Jie Zhong (Peking University), prepared by the International Psychoanalytical Association Study Group in Wuhan

For more than a century, psychoanalysis has carried within itself two partly competing accounts of narcissism. Sigmund Freud (1914) conceived narcissism as libidinal investment directed onto the self: a finite quantity of psychic energy, withdrawn from objects, that development was expected gradually to surrender to the external world. Heinz Kohut's self psychology (1971, 1977) later argued from a different clinical vantage point that narcissism follows its own developmental line, that its mature forms underpin ambition, ideals and creativity, and that much narcissistic suffering originates not in loving the self too much but in the failure of early mirroring and idealizing experiences to consolidate a cohesive self. For generations these framings have often been read as alternatives. A research team at Peking University, led by Prof. Dr. Jie Zhong, an IPA direct member and associate professor at the School of Psychological and Cognitive Sciences, has spent more than a decade arguing that they need not choose sides.

A question raised early, pursued slowly

Zhong's engagement with the clinical and theoretical problem of the self long preceded the present model. In 2011 he examined the tensions that arise when classical psychoanalytic ideas meet the expectations of Chinese patients, asking openly whether the cultural assumptions embedded in psychoanalytic technique can travel across cultural boundaries (Zhong, 2011). That early paper is best read not as a finished position but as the first step of a research arc: a sustained interest in how the self is organized, and how that organization can be understood both clinically and scientifically. The theoretical framework itself was formalized in two parts. The first, "On a theory of self-structure—Part 1: The nature of narcissism," appeared in this journal in 2023; the second, "The theoretical dimensions of self-structure," follows in 2026. The two papers, together with a newly developed measurement instrument, now constitute a deliberately cumulative body of work rather than a single position paper.

Two orthogonal axes, not a single line

The core proposal is that self-structure—defined as an innate, coherent subjective organization that shapes psychological experience—rests on two statistically orthogonal dimensions. The first, self-cathexis, inherits Freud's account: it is the degree to which libidinal (emotional) value is invested in the self, the metaphorical "existence-weight" a person grants themselves. The second, self-space need, inherits Kohut: it is the relational and psychological space a person requires in order to maintain cohesion and pursue development, the soil in which the self is held, mirrored and allowed to idealize. On this view, one dimension answers "how much do I value myself?" while the other answers "how much environmental and relational sustenance do I need to keep my sense of self intact?" The two are not opposite ends of one scale; they vary independently.

Density, four configurations, and clinical illustration

Their ratio forms self-structure density—the essence of narcissism on this account—which distinguishes "solid" from "void" narcissism and organizes self-structure into four quadrants. The model is explicitly not a typology: most people occupy the continuous middle ground, and the quadrants describe tendencies rather than fixed diagnoses. Part 2 illustrates the framework with two clinical cases. Celia, a sixteen-year-old with borderline personality features, and Zoe, a twenty-two-year-old woman with a history of emotional deprivation, both typify void narcissism, yet they sit in different configurations of the two axes—showing, as the author argues, why two patients who look superficially similar at the level of symptoms may differ profoundly in their internal organization. The theoretical claim is that symptom clusters (diagnoses) and the deep organization of the self belong to different dimensional systems, and that conflating the two has limited both clinical understanding and measurement.

Bringing clinical concepts to measurement

A long-standing criticism of self psychology has been that its insights, rich as they are clinically, have proven difficult to translate into quantitative research. Zhong's team has addressed this directly. In 2026 they published the Self-Structure Scale (SOSS; Li, Zhong, Fan, Yin, Gao, & Li, 2026) in Frontiers in Psychiatry: a 28-item instrument built on the bidimensional model, with four first-order factors—positive self, egocentricity, idealized investment, and vulnerable self—loading onto the two higher-order dimensions. Across two studies and four independent samples totaling 5,887 participants, the team reported acceptable internal consistency, test–retest reliability (ICC = .87), a four-factor structure supported by ESEM, measurement invariance across gender, and correlations with existing narcissism measures consistent with the theoretical expectations: grandiose (NPI) correlates more strongly with self-cathexis, while vulnerable/pathological narcissism (PNI) correlates more strongly with self-space need. The authors are careful to state the limits: samples were drawn from non-clinical Chinese populations, the design is cross-sectional and self-report, and clinical, longitudinal and cross-cultural validation remain ahead.

A cross-cultural grounding

Characteristic of this program is its refusal to treat psychoanalytic concepts as settled imports. Part 2 opens with a story from China's Warring States period and draws explicitly on Watsuji's ethics of human milieu and Heidegger's being-in-the-world, as well as on Klein, Winnicott and the object-relations tradition, in arguing that "space" has long been an untheorized dimension of selfhood. The intent is not eclecticism but location: to show that a properly psychological account of self-space can be reached from more than one intellectual tradition, and to set up the cross-cultural questions that a universalizing clinical theory must eventually answer.

The value of the long arc

What distinguishes this work is less any single finding than the discipline of the arc itself: an early question about culture and technique (2011), a systematic theoretical statement in two parts (2023, 2026), and a measurement instrument tested in nearly six thousand participants—each stage building on the last, each limited acknowledged in its turn. In an era of short, individual publications, this is a program built for accumulation: theory first, then instruments, with clinical observation, psychometrics and cross-cultural inquiry held in deliberate tension. The model remains provisional, and its clinical and cross-cultural claims are not yet fully tested. Yet as an example of how concepts born in the consulting room can be carried, step by careful step, into systematic empirical dialogue, it offers a method that other researchers may adapt and contest.

 

References

Li, X., Zhong, J., Fan, S.-S., Yin, J.-Y., Gao, X., & Li, W. (2026). The construction and psychometric evaluation of the self-structure scale: A bidimensional model of self-structure. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 17, Article 1942305. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1942305

Zhong, J. (2023). On a theory of self-structure I: The nature of narcissism. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in China, 6, 15–36. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/753yp

Zhong, J. (2026). On a theory of self-structure II: The theoretical dimensions of self-structure. Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in China, 9(1/2) 65–88.

Zhong, J. (2011). Working with Chinese patients: Are conflicts between Chinese culture and psychoanalysis? International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 8(3): 218–226.

 

Prepared by the IPA Study Group in Wuhan, October 2026.

 

Paper Links：

The construction and psychometric evaluation of the self-structure scale: a bidimensional model of self-structure

Working_with_Chinese_Patients: Are_there_Conflicts_Between_Chinese_Culture_and_Psychoanalysis

On_A_Theory_of_Self-Structure_I_The_Nature_of_Narcissism

On_A_Theory_of_Self-structure_II_The_Theoretical_Dimensions_of_Self-Structure