Views
3 months ago

Sigmund Freud

focus on sexual

focus on sexual symbolism? Can we do a psychoanalytic interpretation in which the reading of a text does not finally focus on sex – either the sexual problems of the author or the sexual symbolism of the narrative? One way out of this impasse might be to look at other areas of Freud’s thought – his interest in the techniques and play of interpretation, for instance. As we discussed in Chapter 3, the techniques and concepts Freud used to interpret people’s dreams – free association and dream-work – opened up the possibility that interpretation was an endless process, rather than a riddle with a single solution. The focus on dream-work and free association also provides another way of thinking differently about what psychoanalysis has to offer literature. If interpretation is a process that does not come to a definite end, it may be that the relationship between a reader and a book resembles the relationship between the analyst and the patient, who engage in the process of transference. This at first glance may seem illogical. If you recall, psychoanalytic transference as defined previously (see p. 38) takes place between two people. In a working analysis the patient will transfer strong emotions that he holds or has held for other people – for instance, his parents – on to the analyst. In a sense, the psychoanalytic office resembles a theatre during transference; the analyst is made to play a role, unconsciously, by the patient, who then responds to the analyst as if he were responding to a person from an earlier period in his life. Transference suggests that reading or understanding others is always a process which involves an exchange of emotional presuppositions. A simple way of saying this might be that every person brings their old emotional baggage to every new relationship they form – every person’s unconscious holds the residues of those earliest relationships with parents and siblings, not to mention old friends and lovers. All relationships are refracted through these earlier moments; as we know, early-childhood expectations and disappointments continue to exist in the unconscious even when they appear to be forgotten. One goal of analysis is to shift the form in which these early emotions appear, from uncontrolled emotion to well understood narratives of the past. In his article ‘Remembering, Repeating and Working Through’ Freud describes the movement through the play-acting of transference and out the other side that is a key move towards health for the patient. When patients are caught up in transference – treating the analyst as a parent, for instance – they do not realise that they are doing it. Patients are completely enveloped by the role that they play and the role into which they have put the therapist; they unconsciously repeat scenes from their past life without being able to step outside those repetitions and identify the origins of their strong feelings. The analyst’s job is to guide the patient towards the recognition of the play in which both of them are performers. Once patients have remembered the events and emotions that inspired the blockages and repetitions in their lives, once they have begun to construct a narrative which allows them to analyse their actions and emotions rather than just acting them out repetitively, they move to the next stage of analysis – working through. ‘The success of the analysis depends upon converting reenactment into memory: through the “talking cure”, the language of remembrance takes the place of the compulsive rehearsals of the past’ (Ellmann 1994:8). The importance of storytelling and play-acting to the analytic scene becomes clear in this definition of transference. But we are still talking about storytelling and play-acting between two people, not between a person and a work of literature. Transference between people seems to make sense, but how can there be transference between a person and a book? How can one establish a transferential relationship with literature? Post-structuralist psychoanalytic literary critics have brought the idea of transference to bear on the act of reading by emphasising the portions of Freud’s theories which claim that the act of reading is always a process, and never a fully stable one. When we read, the text affects us; our

eadings affect the text. Post-structuralist criticism has also emphasised that the author’s intentions are never fully retrievable from the text we are given (see Barthes 1995). Writing severs itself from the intentions of the author when it appears on a page – we may surmise that we know what that writer meant to communicate, but we can never be completely sure, because, as Freud, along with poets and novelists throughout history, has shown, words always come in multiple, layered meanings. They signify differently in different contexts, and sometimes they signify doubly in the same context (think of the example of unheimlich). Furthermore, the delving of psychoanalysis into unconscious motivations and meanings suggests that we could not be sure of the intentions behind a text even if we had the author in the room with us and could ask him or her what he or she meant. The existence of unconscious desires means that our motives can be murky, even (or, as Freudian slips suggest, sometimes especially) to ourselves. So we can see two related arguments here for the impossibility of pinning down a single stable meaning of a literary text. One is that language itself defers meaning – the meanings of words always potentially shift and change. (If, for instance, you look up the meaning of a word in a dictionary to try and pin it down you will invariably find more words, with more meanings that you must look up. There is no foreseeable end to this process.) The other argument is that the existence of unconscious desires also defers the final assignment of meaning: because of the unconscious, a text always means more and differently than what the author intended; we may always be also saying something other than what we think we mean. In the relationship that emerged in early psychoanalytic criticism of literature, psychoanalysis took the position of interpreting analyst to literature’s object of analysis. A story viewed through a psychoanalytic framework would reveal its hidden (often sexual) meanings. But critics such as Shoshona Felman have suggested that this relationship can be reversed; literature may also usefully read psychoanalysis, and inform and critique its suppositions and positions (Felman 1977a). In the first instance this suggests the possibility of subjecting Freud’s writings to the same processes of reading that we would apply to a poem or novel. Throughout this book the idea that Freud should be read both critically, to discover the contradictions and fissures in his ideas, and for his rhetoric has been an underlying theme. When we go to the case histories and read ‘Dora’ as if we were reading a melodramatic novel of the fin de siècle, the readings that emerge are different from those that would appear if we viewed Freud’s account of Dora as a scientific, objective unfolding of a medical case. We always bring presuppositions to a text (for instance, the expectations we have when we sit down to read a medical study), but our reading of the text is always capable of undermining those presuppositions. This is one sense in which the reader can be seen to participate in a transferential dynamic with a text. Furthermore, when Freud writes, he is, not surprisingly, interested in convincing readers of his position. He repeatedly uses certain metaphors to help ground his claims – for instance, the comparison between archaeology and psychoanalysis, in which one discovers the past civilisation buried under the present one. (For analyses of Freud’s rhetoric see Fish 1988 and Mahony 1987.) In the process of interpreting the evidence around him Freud also constructs a rhetorically powerful way of reading the world. One of the lessons that can be taken from the methods of psychoanalytic interpretation is that the process of reading does not simply involve unearthing what is already there in a text; it also always involves creation or construction. For Anna O., reconstructing her past simultaneously meant constructing it anew, in a way which she could then take control of. On the first page of this book I described Freud as a myth-maker for our culture. One definition of a myth-maker might be one who creates stories that others find compelling, that others see themselves reflected in; stories which, in some sense, both are true and also become true.

sigmund freud's collection an archaeology of the mind
Therapist's Guide to Clinical Intervention - Sigmund Freud
Sigmund Freud Private University Vienna Paris Academic ...
The Interpretation of Dreams Sigmund Freud (1900)
Sigmund Freud Private University Vienna International Outpatient ...
Sigmund Freud: 1856-1958 - Istituto Marco Belli
Sigmund Freud Private University Vienna Paris Academic and ...
The Interpretation Of Dreams Sigmund Freud (1900) PREFACE
PDF An Anatomy of Addiction: Sigmund Freud, William Halsted, and the Miracle Drug Cocaine - Read Unlimited eBooks and Audiobooks
FREUDE
Psychoanalysis was started by a Jew, Sigmund Freud. How do we ...
drinnen Freude
View Joshua Sigmund's article on the NJFH - New Jersey Firemen's ...
Research Methods Wrap up Psychoanalysis: Freud (Part I)
I gotta feeling: Top tips for feeling good - Anna Freud Centre
Lucian Freud
Einem Kind Freude schenken
Die Freude - Flip Flop
Die Freude - Flip Flop
Design for Quality Essentials - A Sigmund Approach