“emancipated women”のメタ・サイコロジー
――Alix Strachey と Joan Riviere の精神分析――
日本英文学会第78回大会(中京大学2006年5月20日)
シムポジウム：「大戦間」の文化研究のために
共同体、ファシズム、精神分析
遠藤 不比人（東京都立大学／首都大学東京）
1)In 1925 Ernest Jones, stimulated by the opinion of Mrs. James Strachey, who at that time was in analysis with Abraham in Berlin, and Mrs. Riviere, who from the beginning took a great interest in my papers, invited me to give lectures on child analysis in England. “Autobiography—Melanie Klein”The Melanie Klein Archive at The Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding of Medicine (PP/KLE/A.52).
2)I meant to tell you how exciting last night’s Sitzung had been. For Die Klein propounded her views & experiences on Kinderanalyse, & at last the opposition showed its hoary head—& it really was too hoary. The words used were, of course, psycho-analytical: danger of weakening the Ichideal, etc. But the sense was, I thought, purely anti-analysis: we mustn’t tell children the terrible truth about their repressed tendencies, etc. And this, altho’die Klein demonstrated absolutely clearly that these children (from 2 3/4 upwards) were already wrecked by the repression of their desires & the most appalling Schuld bewusstsein (=too great, or incorrect oppression by the Ueberich)…. This was to disprove the contention that what children need is to have their Überichs toned up…. She’s [Klein’s] going to Vienna to read her paper; & it is expected that she will be opposed by Bernfeldt & Eichhorn (?), those hopeless pedagogues, &, I fear, by Anna Freud, that open or secret sentimentalist. Two more women backed Melanie. One was Horney & the other a Frau Müller, who said something rather interesting, which was that children often projected their already-formed Ueber-Ichs back onto their parents, & so feared them in a quite exaggerated way, & often thought them tyrannous & cruel when in reality they were as mild as milk…. underlines mine Bloomsbury/Freud, 145-6.
3)You know, my respect for her [Klein] continues to grow. She’s got not only vast hoards of data, but a great many ideas, all rather formless & mixed, but clearly capable of crystallizing in her mind. She’s got a creative mind, & that’s the main thing. I am inclined to bet heavily on her. She would like to give 2 or 3 lectures to educationalist in England on the education of children…. I asked her what sort of things she wanted to say; & she said that she wanted in the first place to separate ‘Frühanalyse’ entirely from education (unlike Hug-Hell) & explain the radical difference between the two…. underlines mineB/F, 203.
4)And my belief is strengthened by reading Hug-Hellmuth’s outpourings on the subject: a mass of sentimentality covering the old intention of dominating at least one human being—one’s own child. I really believe a book like hers might do more harm than good. It gives parents & teachers a new leverage…. Thank God Melanie is absolutely firm on this subject. She absolutely insists on keeping parental & educative influence apart from analysis…. underlines mine B/F, 200-1
5)It is surely clear enough from adult analysis that it is not the reality of the patient’s relations with his parents at any age that is reflected in his neurosis. The Oedipus complex and the pregenital phantasies woven into it originate and have their existence in the mind—or in the ‘imagination’, as we might express it in ordinary everyday speech—and are quite independent of any correspondence with reality, as every transference-neurosis shows us. These phantasies are played out in the Unconscious, and the objects of them are not the real father and mother at all, but the unconscious imagoes of them. The unconscious relations with these imagoes are then transferred to the real parents and worked off on them (just as they are worked off on the analyst in the transference-neurosis), and this gives rise to the morbid behaviour of which so often a child’s neurosis largely consists. This is a perfectly commonplace and familiar fact to every analyst, but it would nevertheless be fundamentally disproved if the statements by Anna Freud were true. underline mine The Inner World andJoan Riviere, 83-4.
6)When we think of their rich phantasy-life, which analysis reveals to us, we see that it consists of things unimaginable to our conscious civilized minds, things that never could be realized in any environment; even in regard to pregenital pre-Oedipus phantasies, therefore, the factor of frustration operates. It is not actual threats or prohibitions, or moral or ethical injunctions, which instil a sense of guilt into the child; it is the fact of its own inferiority and the unattainability of its sexual desires…. underlines mineIWJR, 85.
7)A great deal of the intensity of libidinal desire and the general avidity of neurotics is, we know, due to a non-acceptance of the fact of frustration—it is a perpetual seeking after a reassurance that disappointment has not to be endured. IWJR, 87.
Primary Sources
Hughes, Athol ed. The Inner World and Joan Riviere: Collected Papers 1920-1958. LondonNew York: Karnac, 1991.
Klein, Melanie. “Autobiography—Melanie Klein” The Melanie Klein Archive at The Wellcome Library for the History and Understanding Medicine (PP/KLE/A.52).
Meisel, Perry and Walter Kendrick ed. Bloomsbury/Freud: The Letters of James and Alix Strachey 1924-1925. New York: Basic Books, 1985.
Strachey, Alix. The Unconscious Motives of War: A Psycho-Analytical Contribution. London: George Allen & Unwin LTD, 1957.
Secondary Sources
Appignanesi, Lisa and John Forrester. Freud’s Women. Hamondsworth: Penguin, 2000.
Caine, Barbara. “The Stracheys and Psychoanalysis.”History Workshop Journal 45 (1998): 145-69.
――. Bombay to Bloomsbury: A Biography of the Strachey Family. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Endo, Fuhito. “The Radical Violence Inside Out: Woolf and Klein Reconsidered in Inter-war Politics.”Twentieth-Century Literature. 52 (2006, forthcoming).
Grosskurth, Phyllis. Melanie Klein and Her World and Her Work. New York: Knopf, 1986.
Hill, Marylu. Mothering Modernity: Feminism, Modernism, and the Maternal Muse. New YorkLondon: Garland, 1999.
Hughes, Athol. “Personal Experiences—Personal Interests: Joan Riviere and Femininity.”International Journal of Psycho-Analysis. 78 (1997): 899-911.
Ian, Marcia. Remembering the Phallic Mother: Psychoanalysis, Modernism and the Fetish. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1993.
Jacobus, Mary. The Poetics of Psychoanalysis: In the Wake of Klein. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2005.
Joannou, Maroula. “The Angel of Freedom: Dora Marsden and the Transformation of The Freewoman into The Egoist.”Women’s History Review. 11/4 (2002): 595-611.
Johnson,George. Dynamic Psychology in Modernist British Fiction. (New York: Palgrave, 2005).
Kent, Susan Kingsley. Making Peace: The Reconstruction of Gender in Interwar Britain. New Jersey: Princeton UP, 1993.
Light, Alison. Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism between the Wars. LondonNew York: Routledge, 1991.
Lucas, John. The Radical Twenties: Writing, Politics, Culture. Nottingham: Five Leaves, 1997.
Micale, Mark S. ed. The Minds of Modernism: Medicine, Psychology, and the Cultural Arts in Europe and America, 1880-1940. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2004.
Raitt, Suzanne. May Sinclair: A Modern Victorian. Oxford: Clarendon, 2000.
Rapp, Dean. “The Reception of Freud by the British Press: General Interest and Literary Magazines, 1920-1925.”Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences. 24 (1988): 191-201.
Riley, Denise. War in the Nursery: Theories of the Child and Mother. London: Virago, 1983.
Rose, Jacqueline. Why War? : Psychoanalysis, Politics, and the Return to Melanie Klein. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993.
Stonebridge, Lyndsey. “Anxiety at a Time of Crisis.”History Workshop Journal 45 (1998): 171-82.
――. The Destructive Element: British Psychoanalysis and Modernism. LondonNew York: Macmillan, 1998.
Winslow, Ted. “Keynes and Freud: Psychoanalysis and Keynes’s Account of the ‘Animal Spirits’ of Capitalism.”Social Research. 53/4 (1986): 549-90.
――. “Bloomsbury, Freud, and the Vulgar Passions.”Social Research. 57/4 (1990): 785-819.
十川幸司『精神分析への抵抗――ジャック・ラカンの経験と論理』青土社、2000年。
松本朗「ポストサフレジズム小説としての『歳月』」Metropolitan第50号（2006年）東京都立大学英文学会発行：21－44頁。
ジョアン・コプチェク『わたしの欲望を読みなさい――ラカン理論によるフーコー批判』梶理和子・下河辺美知子・鈴木英明・村山敏勝訳、青土社、1998年。
遠藤 不比人「『歴史』という強迫／享楽――大戦間、精神分析、ウルフ、あるいは『晦渋』をめぐる断章」『ヴァージニア・ウルフ研究』第20号（2003年）日本ヴァージニア・ウルフ協会発行：116-29頁。
――「ラディカルな『内部』としての『外部』――メラニ・クラインと大戦間の文化研究」『英語青年』第149巻第4号（2003年）：38～41頁。
――「メラニー・クラインというスキャンダル――精神分析における食と排泄の弁証法」『食餌の技法――身体医文化論 IV』鈴木晃仁・石塚久郎編 慶應義塾大学出版会（2005年）：254～74頁
―― 「サディズム／メランコリーの倫理――メラニー・クラインを読むジュディス・バトラー」『I. R. S.――ジャック・ラカン研究』第5号（2006年近刊）日本ラカン協会発行。