지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
논문 기본 정보
- 자료유형
- 학술저널
- 저자정보
- 발행연도
- 1999.12
- 수록면
- 294 - 322 (29page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article is a part of my ambitious project, entitled "Jacques Lacan, dialoguing with Melanie Klein. The project consists of four essential parts: (Ⅰ) their conceptualization of the unconscious; (Ⅱ) their theories of the origin of symbolism; (Ⅲ) their difference in oedipus complex and sexuality; (Ⅳ) as a corollary of the three previous ones, interpretation and analytic technique.
The problems alleged here is the conceptualization of the unconscious. Klein and Lacan differ in two levels. Each of these levels can be epitomized by Klein's and Lacan's two kinds of remarks, namely, that "the Unconscious is structured by the phantasies(Klein) or like a language(Lacan)", and that "the Unconscious is the symbolic links(Klein) or the discourse of the Other(Lacan)". The former stands for unconscious formation and the latter refers to unconscious position.
Firstly, I point out that for Lacan the unconscious is structured like a language whereas for Klein the unconscious is structured by phantasies. what do they both mean? At the most obvious level, what Lacan means by the unconscious is structured like a language is that "it speaks". Lacan means that the formation of the unconscious consists in it signifying properties, in its ability to convey a message through rhetorical means, that is to say, metaphor and metonymy(i.e., condensation and displacement). In other words, the essence of the unconscious lies in its symbolic capacity.
Lacan argue that in Kleinian theory the unconscious is conceived as consisting essentially of unconscious phantasies. He criticised Kleinian theory "imaginarizes the symbolic". By this he means that the symbolic is reduced to imagos, to phantasies, and th the interplay between these imagos - to what Klein would call "internal object relations" For Klein, phantasies are the primary content of unconscious mental processes. She argued that phantasies are the psychic representatives of instinctual drives, and that therefore, they constitute the internal objects of parents-figures. Hence, Lacan emphasizes th formations of the unconscious, which are said to be symbolic. Klein stresses its imaginary content.
Jacques-Alain Miller strongly argued that "Lacan's discovery was not that the unconscious is structured like a language … it is the objet petit a, instead, Lacan called his discovery in psycho-analysis." what this objet a is cannot be defined succinctly because Lacan uses it basically to name a problem. The problem becomes even more complicated when we consider that this objet a is an element in Lacan's definition of phantasy, namely: $◇a. the barred subject implies the subject who has become symbolically castrated in conjunction with the other and a is objet a. Now, if phantasy is partly objet a, and if objet a is never fully absorbed by the symbolic, then the unconscious is both language and phantasy.
Secondly, as for unconscious position, Lacan argues that "the Unconscious is the discourse of the Other". One of the several meanings of this remark is that the unconscious is trans-individual, rather than a dark box inside the individual. The unconscious in Lacan is an unconscious that binds; for Lacan language is something that links, that ties. And the unconscious is not one; there is no such thing as an unconscious of analyst and an unconscious of the patient; there is no individual unconscious; there is no collective unconscious either. The unconscious is something that interplays in the dual order; the unconscious is something that goes over the heads of the analytical partners: the analyst and the analysand. The unconscious exists when there is an event in the analytical relation. And that it can manifest itself through the mouth of either one or the other. This is the unconscious as a sort of knowledge.
According to Lacan, Klein shared Freud's view of the unconscious as being individual. However, she attempted to conceptualize this "linking" that the unconscious does through concepts such as projective identification and through her emphasis on transference/counter-transference relation. These are concepts which call into question the individuality of the unconscious. A conception of the unconscious as being trans-individual would make all these concepts unnecessary. This means that the unconscious in Klein is also the symbolic links.
Lastly, I argue that the structuring of the unconscious ends in the reproduction of the culture. For this, I conceptualize "the unconscious of the culture" and delineate a unique characteristics of the methods for studying the unconscious of cultural levels in social theory.
The problems alleged here is the conceptualization of the unconscious. Klein and Lacan differ in two levels. Each of these levels can be epitomized by Klein's and Lacan's two kinds of remarks, namely, that "the Unconscious is structured by the phantasies(Klein) or like a language(Lacan)", and that "the Unconscious is the symbolic links(Klein) or the discourse of the Other(Lacan)". The former stands for unconscious formation and the latter refers to unconscious position.
Firstly, I point out that for Lacan the unconscious is structured like a language whereas for Klein the unconscious is structured by phantasies. what do they both mean? At the most obvious level, what Lacan means by the unconscious is structured like a language is that "it speaks". Lacan means that the formation of the unconscious consists in it signifying properties, in its ability to convey a message through rhetorical means, that is to say, metaphor and metonymy(i.e., condensation and displacement). In other words, the essence of the unconscious lies in its symbolic capacity.
Lacan argue that in Kleinian theory the unconscious is conceived as consisting essentially of unconscious phantasies. He criticised Kleinian theory "imaginarizes the symbolic". By this he means that the symbolic is reduced to imagos, to phantasies, and th the interplay between these imagos - to what Klein would call "internal object relations" For Klein, phantasies are the primary content of unconscious mental processes. She argued that phantasies are the psychic representatives of instinctual drives, and that therefore, they constitute the internal objects of parents-figures. Hence, Lacan emphasizes th formations of the unconscious, which are said to be symbolic. Klein stresses its imaginary content.
Jacques-Alain Miller strongly argued that "Lacan's discovery was not that the unconscious is structured like a language … it is the objet petit a, instead, Lacan called his discovery in psycho-analysis." what this objet a is cannot be defined succinctly because Lacan uses it basically to name a problem. The problem becomes even more complicated when we consider that this objet a is an element in Lacan's definition of phantasy, namely: $◇a. the barred subject implies the subject who has become symbolically castrated in conjunction with the other and a is objet a. Now, if phantasy is partly objet a, and if objet a is never fully absorbed by the symbolic, then the unconscious is both language and phantasy.
Secondly, as for unconscious position, Lacan argues that "the Unconscious is the discourse of the Other". One of the several meanings of this remark is that the unconscious is trans-individual, rather than a dark box inside the individual. The unconscious in Lacan is an unconscious that binds; for Lacan language is something that links, that ties. And the unconscious is not one; there is no such thing as an unconscious of analyst and an unconscious of the patient; there is no individual unconscious; there is no collective unconscious either. The unconscious is something that interplays in the dual order; the unconscious is something that goes over the heads of the analytical partners: the analyst and the analysand. The unconscious exists when there is an event in the analytical relation. And that it can manifest itself through the mouth of either one or the other. This is the unconscious as a sort of knowledge.
According to Lacan, Klein shared Freud's view of the unconscious as being individual. However, she attempted to conceptualize this "linking" that the unconscious does through concepts such as projective identification and through her emphasis on transference/counter-transference relation. These are concepts which call into question the individuality of the unconscious. A conception of the unconscious as being trans-individual would make all these concepts unnecessary. This means that the unconscious in Klein is also the symbolic links.
Lastly, I argue that the structuring of the unconscious ends in the reproduction of the culture. For this, I conceptualize "the unconscious of the culture" and delineate a unique characteristics of the methods for studying the unconscious of cultural levels in social theory.
목차
序論 - 클라인과 라깡의 ‘대화‘를 기획하면서
Ⅰ. 무의식의 개념화
小結 - ‘무의식의 구조화‘는 ‘문화의 무의식‘(?)…
〈Abstract〉
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
무의식론 : 프로이트와 라깡의 차별성
철학논총
2017 .04
-
무의식의 언어에 관하여
새한영어영문학회 학술발표회 논문집
2009 .08
-
The Letter That Structures and Splits Us : Lacan’s “The Instance of the Letter in the Unconscious”
새한영어영문학
2011 .11
-
무의식의 언어에 관하여
새한영어영문학
2010 .05
-
무의식과 라깡의 실재 개념
현대정신분석
2013 .08
-
A Dynamic of Lacanian Pedagogy: Listening to the Poetic Unconscious of Dickinson and Stevens
현대영미시연구
2019 .01
-
정신분석학의 언어적 무의식 재론 : 프로이트에서 라깡으로
현대정신분석
2006 .08
-
The Concept of Sin and Freud's Theory of the Unconscious Processes
신학논단
1977 .02
-
텍스트에 대한 라캉적 태도와 그 설천 : 「벤 벌벤 아래에서」에 나타난 “오브제 쁘띠 아”
새한영어영문학
2002 .06
-
무의식의 낭만적 구성 : 워즈워스의 「숭엄과 아름다움」
현대정신분석
2001 .06
-
들뢰즈, 가타리의 분열분석에서 억압과 무의식의 문제
철학연구
2018 .06
-
오이디푸스 콤플렉스를 넘어서: 로렌스와 들뢰즈의 정신분석학 비판
D. H. 로렌스 연구
2011 .01
-
클라인과 라깡의 대화(4) : 분석기술과 해석
현대정신분석
2003 .12
-
혁명기 러시아의 정신분석 운동 — 무의식과 사회적 실천 논쟁의 재검토 —
외국학연구
2013 .01
-
매리언 무어의 시학에 관한 시들―“진정한” 어떤 것
현대영미시연구
2012 .01
-
무의식의 현상학적 독해 : 미셸 앙리와 프로이트
현상학과 현대철학
2018 .12
-
프랑클의 관점에서 바라본 프로이트의 무의식 메커니즘
신학과 목회
2014 .12
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-185-015583403