字體：小 中 大 |
|
|
|
| 2007/01/22 15:26:55瀏覽623｜回應0｜推薦0 | |
LACAN’S ENVY AND GRATITUDE The first time Lacan referred to Klein in writing was in his essay on aggressivity, which he delivered in May 1948 as a speech to the Congrès des Psychanalystes de Langue Française in Brussels.42 He likened his own notion of the “imagos of the fragmented body” to Melanie’s notion of the “internal objects” of archaic fantasies, and he paid tribute to the aspects of “the phenomenology of the Kleinian experience” that consist of the “fantasies of what is termed the paranoid stage.”43 In appropriating Klein’s notion of the paranoid position, Lacan augmented it, defining the ego as an instance of imaginary méconnaissance built upon a paranoid structure. The negative transference emphasized by Klein helped Lacan understand treatment to be a controlled paranoia that serves to remedy the ignorance of the ego: psychoanalysis “induce[s] In the subject a controlled paranoia” that is tantamount to the “the projection of what Melanie Klein calls bad internal objects, a paranoiac mechanism…filtered, as it were, and properly checked” by the analyst.44 With a great deal of loyalty to Klein, Lacan traces his concept of the “imaginary,” which he was still forming in 1948, to Melanie’s own writings: he speaks of “the imaginary primordial enclosure formed by the imago of the mother’s body.”45 He also appears amenable to the idea of an archaic superego, though he is less interested in the biological prematurity that supports it than in its cultural dimension as a “signifier.” The “persistence in the imaginary of good and bad objects” generates the notion of an early superego, which has “ generic” meaning for the subject ; the same applies to the infantile dependence associated with the baby’s “physiological misery” but inseparable from his “relationship to his human surroundings.” The superego is thus an instance laden with meaning that lies at the “crossroads between nature and culture.”46 In August 1949 Lacan returned to many of these themes during the Sixteenth Congress of the International Association of Psychoanalysis in Zurich, where he delivered a paper entitled “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I.”47 The emphasis that Lacan, beginning with this paper, placed on the visual realm as a signifying organizer of the other sensations in the structure of the subject appears to be inconsistent with Klein’s theories.48 Lacan’s piece also pays substantial tribute to Anna Freud, a move that has often been interpreted as part of his political strategy to link himself with the daughter of the “founder.” Although Lacan had at least two irons in the fire of international psychoanalysis, one could see this reference to Anna as a way for him to disassociate himself from the outer limits of a Kleinianism preoccupied with the primitive ego. Lacan was seeking a focal point for his own non-Freudian theory of the subject, and he abandoned Melaine while flirting with Anna Freud’s surprisingly empiricial and restrictive propositions concerning the ego’s secondary or defensive mechanisms. In the ends, though, Lacan associated both women with the “structures of systematic méconnaissance” in which Miss Freud’s ego defenses join the Kleinian phantasy. While courting Anna, Lacan was also contacting Melanie and even suggesting to her that “the progressive point of view in psycho-analysis,”50 which Melanie believed belonged to him in the eyes of the French, should have been represented during the first World Congress of Psychiatry not by Anna Freud but by the Kleinians themselves.51 Seduction, approbation, and abandonment: was this a game, an ambiguous one to say the least, destined to become a “Freudian slip”…or was it a true act of sabotage? René Diatkine, who was in analysis with Lacan, translated from the German the first part of The Psychoanalysis of Children, and he entrusted his translation to Lacan. Fançoise Girard, an analyst also being treated by Lacan who married the Canadian analyst Jean-Baptiste Boulanger, obtained Melanie’s approval to translate Love, Guilt, and Reparation. Melanie learned from Diatkine that one half of The Psychoanalysis of Children had been translated, but that Lacan was not the author of that version. And yet Lacan told the Boulangers otherwise when he offered them the chance to translate the second half of Klein’s work. The first part of the translation, the one that Diatkine handed over to Lacan, is nowhere to be found! Lacan never formally admitted that he had lost it, and Diatkine did not keep a duplicate for himself! In January 1952 the Boulangers had lunch with Melanie and recounted the whole sorry tale to her. Lacan lost all credibility in her mind, and she subsequently aligned herself with Daniel Lagache.52 In the meantime the anthology Developments in Psycho-Analysis, edited by Melanie Klein, Paula Heimann, Susan Isaacs, and Joan Riviere, was published in 1952—and for Melanie’s seventieth birthday, Roger Money-Kyrle put together a Festschrift. This tribute was eventually published in the form of a special issue of the International Journal of Psychoanalysis that was edited by Paula Heimann and Roger Money-Kyrle and that included work by fourteen contributors.53 These publications recapture and elaborate upon the essential features of Klein’s thought regarding the Controversial Discussions, and they clearly reflect her desire to renew psychoanalysis. Two years later, in 1954, and during his Seminar of Freud’s Papers on Technique, Lacan returned to the “case of Dick” and offered his own reading of Freud’s “On Negation” in response to Jean Hyppolite.54 As I have mentioned, Freud’s essay served as she Kleinians’ battle horse during the Controversies with the Anna Freudians, who proved themselves unfamiliar with the work.55 Lacan thus employed the same strategy that the Kleinians did during their own attempt to recast psychoanalysis. But Lacan failed to credit his sources, and he declined to cite Klein in his discussion of Freudian negativity, except, perhaps, through his indirect reference to Kris and Melitta in the context of the case study of the Brain Man! Lacan’s displacement, incidentally, is significant. The primacy of the signifier eradicates what I have termed Klein’s “incarnationism,” her ever heterogeneous conception of an imaginary that is at once a thing and an image, a sensation or an effect and representation.56 Lacan saw himself apart from all this and laid out “developments” and “new directions” of his own—but he also forgot the women who inspired him and avoided confrontation as a result. That did not keep him from occasionally referring to Klein’s work, usually with a respectful tone, as if he had gotten over envy without quite reaching gratitude, suggesting that he sensed deep affinities with Klein’s work, particularly with her conception of a primal paranoia and of an early fantasy that structures the ego. From that perspective, he likened Klein’s “depressive position” to his own “mirror stage” in the sense that both concepts attest to “the characteristically imaginary nature of the function of the Ego in the subject.”57 And he also paid tribute to “Melanie Klein’s genius” in having “reconstructed” the “depressive core” that is ushered in by the death drive. And yet Lacan pulled no punches when it came to indicating his fundamental disagreement with her, particularly with respect to her failure to acknowledge the paternal function or to create a theory of the subject, and he also objected to Klein’s reducing the penis to a role as a mere appendage in her hypostasis of the maternal imago that remained forever foreign to Lacan. In that spirit, he admonished Jones for having endorsed the “utter brutality” of Klein’s concepts and for having seen the penis only as a part object and not at all as “the phallus.” He also denounced Jones’s “failure …to include the most primal oedipal fantasies in the mother’s body and to account for their origin in the reality presumed by the Name-of-the-Father.”59 Amid all this envy and ingratitude, “inspired gut butcher” appears to be the most gripping formula. Did I simply hear these words during one of Lacan’s seminars that has not yet been published? I was unable to track the phrase down in Lacan’s published writings. Is this undiscoverable quotation an indelible symptom of a Klein who eludes our grasp, a symptom that infects those who love her as well as those who hate her, as if she refused to be summed up in a carefully worded phrase (as we have seen, she was a founder without a text)—and was she perhaps satisfied with simply making others speak, dream, and associate? Was Klein an analyst, in sum, from whom Lacan built a little bridge that reached to the Brain Man, to that plagiarist who “borrowed” without acknowledging as much? It turns out that the phrase can be found in an essay that Lacan devoted to none other than André Gide!60 The phrase appears in the context of Gide’s “oddly unsustained attack” (in the words of Lacan himself, who nevertheless took it upon himself to remind us of it!) on Freud, whom the author of The Counterfeiters called a “brilliant imbecile.”61 After tracing, as does Jean Delay, the endless maze of Gide’s identifications, particularly his identifications with the discourse of a mother who “fills the gap through a passion for his governess,” Lacan addresses the writer’s bond with his cousin Madeleine, and eventually likens his imaginary to an “antique theater” replete with “shaking, slips, and repulsive figures,” “being shaken to the core of one’s being, a sea that enraptures everything.” This horrifying female imagery caused nightmares about a “creek that consumes” the young André, and love abruptly turned a corner into what lies beyond death, when it was not into laughter, until a vengeful Medusa, flanked by the Lady of the Troubadours and by Dante’s Beatrice, insinuated herself into Gide’s and Lacan’s visions of a “black hole.” It is in this very context that we find Lacan’s allusion to Melanie Klein, whose name has been effaced: “Indeed, the child filled this void with monsters—a crowd of monsters known to us, since a diviner with a child’s eyes, an inspired gut butcher, has catalogued them for us—projecting those monsters into the womb of the nursing mother.”62 “Brilliant imbecile” (Freud according to Gide) and “inspired gut butcher” (Klein according to Lacan): therein lies a true “diviner” who speaks volumes about the phobic fantasies of the mother’s “guts” in Gide, as endorsed here by Lacan, which the man and the artist avoid through “inspiration”! But there is so very little on Melanie’s work itself! Except, perhaps, when the psychoanalyst correctly points out that it is essential, in a clinical sense, to consider the degree to which the child’s primary fantasies originate with the mother herself. Lacan invites us to lend our ear to the child who was the mother, that is, to the child that always remains a mother when we analyze the child of the mother. |
|
| ( 知識學習｜其他 ) |
