Abstract:
This study offers a Derridean reading of Freud, exploring how we might engage with Freud’s work on sexual difference and Derrida’s radicalized concept of the trace—a "scene of writing" of différance—within the framework of phallogocentrism. It examines the intersections and tensions between the "mainstyles" of psychoanalysis, deconstruction, and feminism, questioning how these approaches overlap and diverge.
Focusing on Freud's foundational concepts—such as the cause of hysteria, the navel of the dream, perceptual identity, and primal phantasies—the analysis reveals Freud’s pursuit of a singular origin, a "caput Nili," as the cornerstone of a grand narrative. Initially framed as an etiology of hysteria, this narrative evolves into a masterplot of sexual development and ultimately of humanity itself. By anchoring psychoanalysis in an Oedipal origin and telos, Freud’s theory becomes increasingly totalizing, limiting its openness to chance and to that which escapes theoretical mastery.
This work approaches these issues as a question of the ethics of psychoanalysis. It critiques Freud’s appropriative tendency to masterplot through what Derrida, in his reading of Lacan’s Le facteur de la vérité, terms "castration-truth." Unlike theorists who emphasize the radical potential of Freudian theory, such as Barnaby B. Barratt in Psychoanalysis and the Postmodern Impulse, I argue that Lacan’s phallogocentric "return to Freud" aligns more faithfully with Freud’s own trajectory. Both approaches, I contend, are ultimately grounded in a logic of lack or "castration-truth."
Central to this critique is Derrida’s suspicion of origins and masterplots. Derrida repeatedly exposes how the quest for an ultimate origin or definitive narrative—what he terms phallogocentrism—inevitably reduces multiplicity and forecloses the undecidable. Freud’s search for a singular explanatory principle, whether in hysteria or the Oedipal framework, exemplifies this tendency toward totalization. Derrida’s deconstruction insists that such masterplots, rather than uncovering truth, are performative gestures that impose structure and meaning retrospectively, betraying an anxiety about the inherent instability of the very foundations they seek to establish.
While Derridean theorists often amplify Freud’s radical spirit—sometimes even Derrida himself—this study posits that the dominant "specter" of Freud is an establishment-oriented, appropriative one rather than a radically "other-wise" figure. This trend, I argue, is connected to a neglect of Freud’s idealized phylogenetics, or "phylo-'genetics’," which underscores his commitment to constructing a universal, appropriative framework.
Acknowledging the risk of reproducing the appropriative logic this study seeks to critique, I explore alternatives that preserve the radical spirit of Freudian thought. Drawing on a deconstructive "technology of iterability," I propose a "cyborg-analysis" or "post-psychoanalysis" that resists totalizing tendencies while remaining open to innovation and iteration. This approach seeks to reframe psychoanalysis as an ethical practice, attuned to the undecidable and the unmasterable, challenging both its origins and its masterplots to allow for a more dynamic, deconstructive engagement with Freud’s legacy.
Original Abstract from 2000:
This Derridean reading of Freud asks the question of how we should read Freud with respect to sexual difference and what Derrida considers a radicalized concept of trace, a "scene of writing" of differance ---that is, how we should read Freud with respect to phallogocentrism. Throughout I consider the possible relationships between the "mainstyles" of various psychoanalyses, deconstructions, and feminisms.
By analyzing what is most original for Freud---the cause of hysteria, the navel of the dream, the perceptual identity, the primal phantasies, for example---I find that Freud consistently seeks a single origin, a "caput Nili," on which to base a grand narrative. At first this narrative is an etiology of hysteria, but it evolves into a masterplot of sexual development and later into one of humanity. The establishment of an oedipal origin and telos, and the masterplot based on them, moves psychoanalysis toward a totalizing theory, and therefore its openness to chance and something beyond what that theory can master is greatly reduced. ;I approach these topics in terms of a question of the ethics of psychoanalysis. This appropriative or reductive process of Freud's masterplotting is based on what Derrida calls "castration-truth" in his reading of Lacan, "Le facteur de la verite." In contrast to some theorists who appeal to the radical spirit of Freudian theory as a basis for their radicalization of psychoanalysis---specifically Barnaby B. Barratt's Psychoanalysis and the Postmodern Impulse---I argue that Lacan's phallogocentric "return to Freud" is actually a more faithful one since I find both "mainstyles" of these psychoanalyses based on a logic of lack or "castration-truth."
I argue throughout that the radical spirit of Freud is at times overemphasized or exaggerated by Derridean theorists---and even Derrida himself, though rarely---and that the dominant specter of Freud is an "establishment" or appropriative one, rather than one which is radical or "other-wise." I connect this trend of Derridean thinkers claiming too much debt to psychoanalysis to these thinkers not taking seriously Freud's commitment and interest in an idealized phylogenetics: "phylo-'genetics.'" Since my establishment of this establishment specter of Freud as the "mainstyle" of Freudian theory itself risks reproducing exactly the kind of appropriative discourse I hope to problematize, I attempt to avoid such a reproduction by considering what remains of the radical spirit of Freudian theory in what might be called a deconstructive "technology of iterability;" a "cyborg-analysis;" or what I call "post-psychoanalysis."
コメント