A theory of play and fantasy /Bateson (1955)

Citation - Bateson, G. (1955). A theory of play and fantasy. Psychiatric research reports, 2(39), 39-51.

Keyword -

Abstract

Content

「知道訊號只是訊號」是生物演化出認知能力的關鍵

  • 動物演化的一個關鍵:對他者的情緒訊號不只是做自動化的反應,而根據理解而相信、不信、否定、拒絕、誇大、訂正等。即,當作訊號只是「訊號」。
    • 情緒訊號:如,賀爾蒙。不受意識控制,可知覺,激發生理歷程。
    • 演化出認知能力的關鍵是:動物是否能「覺知」訊號只是訊號?
    • 猴子嬉戲行為。1952觀察,舊金山Fleishhacker動物園。
    • 動物演化發展出來的其他類似嬉戲行為:寒鴉會模仿情緒訊號,吼猴會詐欺。
只有當參與者群體都同意某些後設溝通,即,交換過「這是在玩」的訊號,才可能發生看起來像打鬥的嬉戲這種現象。
Now, this phenomenon, play, could only occur if the participant organisms were capable of some degree of metacommunication, i.e., of exchanging signals which would carry the message “This is play.” (P.316)

「訊號不只是訊號」的行為類型

  • 資訊不指涉訊號指涉的客體:嬉戲(3,8)、詐欺(7)、威脅(8)、開玩笑、作戲(7,8,12)、儀式(9,10,11)、入會霸凌儀式(10)、幻想虛構(11)

[19] 三種動物行為的訊息:(a)情感訊號(mood-signs); (b)模仿情感訊號(在嬉戲、威脅、戲劇中); © 讓接受者能夠區別情感與其他訊號的訊息。「這只是嬉戲」的訊息屬於第三種。
(a) Messages of the sort which we here call mood-signs; (b) messages which simulate mood-signs (in play, threat, histrionics, etc.): and © messages which enable the receiver to discriminate between mood-signs and those other signs which resemble them. The message “This is play” is of this third type. It tells the receiver that certain nips and other meaningful actions are not messages of the first type.

從資訊溝通看嬉戲行為的複雜性:

(8)我們也可以把威脅、嬉戲與作戲當成三個獨立現象,全都對於之所以能演化出辨別地圖與地域差異的能力有所貢獻。但至少對於哺乳動物的溝通行為而言,這種說法不大對勁。對於哺乳動物幼年行為的研究顯示,這類行為比如說作戲玩耍、虛張聲勢、開玩笑的威脅、逗弄著玩等等,共同形塑了整體的複雜現象。很明顯,不只威脅,還有被威脅的行為,都是這個複雜整體的一部份。也許在這個領域中不只有演員,還有觀眾。此外自憐自愛亦不可不提。
[8] We might expect threat, play, and histrionics to be three independent phenomena all contributing to the evolution of the discrimination between map and territory. But it seems that this would be wrong, at least so far as mammalian communication is concerned. Very brief analysis of childhood behavior shows that such combinations as histrionic play, bluff, playful threat, teasing play in response to threat, histrionic threat, and so on form together a single total complex of phenomena. And such adult phenomena as gambling and playing with risk have their roots in the combination of threat and play. It is evident also that not only threat but the reciprocal of threat-the behavior of the threatened individual-are a part of this complex. It is probabLe that not only histrionics but also spectatorship shouldbe included within this field. It is also appropriate to mention self-pity. (P.318)

儀式: 不太分辨「意指的行動」,以及「被此行動所意指的行動」之間的差異。

(12) 嬉戲有兩種特性:(a) 在嬉戲中交換的訊息或信號,從某種意義上來說是假的或不等於的;以及(b)這些信號所指涉的東西不存在。這兩種特性有時奇怪地結合,扭轉了前述的結論。也就是陳述(4)中那個嬉戲的輕咬指涉狠咬,但它卻又不用狠咬,來指涉應該要指涉的狠咬。
[12] We face then two peculiarities of play: (a) that the messages or signals exchanged in play are in a certain sense untrue or not meant; and (b) that that which is denoted by these signals is nonexistent. These two peculiarities sometimes combine strangely to reverse a conclusion reached above. It was stated [4] that the playful nip denotes the bite, but does not denote that which would be denoted by the bite. (P.319)

但幻想戲劇(fantacies)或夢境,能帶來如同真實一般的情緒反應(如驚嚇)。

說謊者悖論[13],語言的不精準[14],討論語言可以描繪矛盾邏輯。

[15] 玩(play)不是初級歷程現象(primary-process phenomenon),區分玩與非玩,如同區分虛構或非虛構,是次級歷程。在夢裡我們不知道自己在夢裡,但在「玩」時我們一定知道「這只是玩」。 [16] premise

框架

[17] 討論框架(frame)與脈絡(context)、心理框架(psychological frame)、嬉戲(play)

  • 定義: 心理框架是一種訊息(或,有意義的行動);
    The first step in defining a psychological frame might be to say that it is (or delimits) a class or set of messages (or meaningful actions).(P.322)
  • 定義: 兩人嬉戲: 兩人之間,在特定時間與受到他們所表示的悖論前提下,一組交換的訊息。
    The play of two individuals on a certain occasion would then be defined as the set of all messages exchanged by them within a limited period of time and modified by the paradoxical premise system which we have described.(P.322)
  • 框架可能是具體的語言,也有可能是非語言的線索。

[18] 心理框架的一般功能(The common functions and uses of psychological frames)

  • (a) 排除:在框架中包含了訊息(或有意義的行動),排除了其他訊息。
    Psychological frames are exclusive, i.e., by including certain messages (or meaningful actions) within a frame, certain other messages are excluded.
  • (b) 內含:排除某些訊息。由集合論(set theory)觀點,同時有兩種功能。當框架是用來組織接受者的覺知,如圖畫框架,只包含了框架之內的訊息,而不包含框架之外的。而圖畫中的人物與背景,卻無法用集合論來看,因為覺知背景也就等於覺知了人物的的輪廓。
    Psychological frames are inclusive, i.e., by excluding certain messages certain others are included. From the point of view of set theory these two functions are synonymous, but from the point of view of psychology it is necessary to list them separately. The frame around a picture, if we consider this frame as a message intended to order or organize the perception of the viewer, says, “Attend to what is within and do not attend to what is outside.” Figure and ground, as these terms are used by gestalt psychologists, are not symmetrically related as are the set and nonset of set theory. Perception of the ground must be positively inhibited and perception of the figure (in this case the picture) must be positively enhanced.
  • © 「前提」:畫框告訴觀眾,框裡面的東西跟框外面的壁紙要用不同的方式看待,或是說,要以某種群體共享的前提做定義,框架本身就成為前提系統的一部分。在嬉戲框架案例中,框架用來評估哪些是訊息,哪些是相關的,那些應該忽略。
    Psychological frames are related to what we have called “premises.” The picture frame tells the viewer that he is not to use the same sort of thinking in interpreting the picture that he might use in interpreting the wallpaper outside the frame. Or, in terms of the analogy from set theory, the messages enclosed within the imaginary line are defined as members of a class by virtue of their sharing common premises or mutual relevance. The frame itself thus becomes a part of the premise system. Either, as in the case of the play frame, the frame is involved in the evaluation of the messages which it contains, or the frame merely assists the mind in understanding the contained messages by reminding the thinker that these messages are mutually relevant and the messages outside the frame may be ignored.
  • (d) 後設溝通(metacommunication):定義框架的訊息,教導或幫助訊息接受者理解框架中的訊息,
    In the sense of the previous paragraph, a frame is metacommunicative. Any message, which either explicitly or implicitly defines a frame, ipso facto gives the receiver instructions or aids in his attempt to understand the messages included within the frame.
  • (e) 後設溝通的訊息也定義心理框架。
    The converse of (d)is also true. Every metacommunicative or metalinguistic message defines, either explicitly or implicitly, the set of messages about which it communicates, i.e., every metacommunicative message is or defines a psychological frame. This, for example, is very evident in regard to such small metacommunicative signals as punctuation marks in a printed message, but applies equally to such complex metacommunicative messages as the psychiatrist's definition of his own curative role in terms of which his contributions to the whole mass of messages in psychotherapy are to be understood.
  • (f) 心理框架與知覺完形(perceptual gestalt)的關係 。盧奧(Roualt)與布萊克(Blake)的人物都有輪廓線。人物輪廓線與背景鏤空的人形。邏輯類型
    The relation between psychological frame and perceptual gestalt needs to be considered, and here the analogy of the picture frame is useful. In a painting by Roualt or Blake, the human figures and other objects represented are outlined. “Wise men see outlines and therefore they draw them.” But outside these lines, which delimit the perceptual gestalt or “figure:' there is a background or “ground” which in turn is limited by the picture frame. Similarly, in set-theoretical diagrams, the larger universe within which the smaller sets are drawn is itself enclosed in a frame. This double framing is, we believe, not merely a matter of “frames within frames” but an indication that mental processes resemble logic in needing an outer frame to delimit the ground against which the figures are to be perceived. This need is often unsatisfied, as when we see a piece of sculpture in a junk shop window, but this is uncomfortable. We suggest that the need for this outer limit to the ground is related to a preference for avoiding the paradoxesof abstraction.Whena logical class or set of items is defined-for example, the class of matchboxes-it is necessary to delimit the set of items which are to be excluded, in this case, all those things which are not matchboxes. But the items to be included in the background set must be of the same degree of abstraction, i.e., of the same “logical type” as those within the set itself. Specifically, if paradox is to be avoided, the “class of matchboxes” and the “class of nonmatchboxes” [even though both these items are clearly not matchboxes] must not be regarded as members of the class of nonmatchboxes. No class can be a member of itself. The picture frame then, because it delimits a background, is here regarded as an external representation of a very special and important type of psychological frame-namely a frame whose function is to delimit a logical type. This, in fact, is what was indicated above when it was said that the picture frame is an instruction to the viewer that he should not extend the premises which obtain between the figures within the picture to the wall paper behind it.

精神治療與嬉戲框架理論

[21]-[25]

Note

影響: