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
- 2002.12
- 수록면
- 115 - 153 (39page)
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This article is the third part of my project, entitled "Jacques Lacan, Dialoguing with Melanie Klein". It deals with the development of sexuality in Klein and Lacan.
The difference between Klein and Lacan is to do with the question of the relationship to the body, which is absolutely central. It seems much clearer to me that Kleinian theory, like that of Freud, is much more based on the body. I feel that Lacan has given an emphasis to culture, composed of the symbolic order but not an enough emphasis to what is absolute in the human condition. One of the things that Lacanian theory does not mention and that Kleinian theory would put a great deal of emphasis on, is procreativity; sexuality is not just some curious symbolic getting-together that seems to involve misunderstanding and so on. It is perhaps the hegemony that Klein would give to heterosexual adult union Which is capable of producing new life. It seems that it becomes divorced from the physical facts, the things that all of us will bring into life, irrespective of culture. He is only interested in the way in which people experience procreation and their own bodies.
The critical point is whether sexual difference is simply the result of social construction. There is innate readiness to recognize sexual difference at a psychic level; and it is our struggle with our bodies and sexual phantasies rooted in the body that we explore in psychoanalysis-body is much more of a given. This is fairly evident to the core of interlocking Lacan with Klein. Actually we are able to get this point to be checked in Klein’s elaborative modification of Freudian semi-biological concept of drive(Trieb).
I have come to the conclusion that for Lacan and Klein there is nothing to be written on the genital level and therefore nothing to presuppose, nothing to introduce and nothing to change. What can be written is the relations between a speaking being and the signifier, phallus(or breast) as its organizing principle, and the "object a"(or "partial object").
The difference between Klein and Lacan is to do with the question of the relationship to the body, which is absolutely central. It seems much clearer to me that Kleinian theory, like that of Freud, is much more based on the body. I feel that Lacan has given an emphasis to culture, composed of the symbolic order but not an enough emphasis to what is absolute in the human condition. One of the things that Lacanian theory does not mention and that Kleinian theory would put a great deal of emphasis on, is procreativity; sexuality is not just some curious symbolic getting-together that seems to involve misunderstanding and so on. It is perhaps the hegemony that Klein would give to heterosexual adult union Which is capable of producing new life. It seems that it becomes divorced from the physical facts, the things that all of us will bring into life, irrespective of culture. He is only interested in the way in which people experience procreation and their own bodies.
The critical point is whether sexual difference is simply the result of social construction. There is innate readiness to recognize sexual difference at a psychic level; and it is our struggle with our bodies and sexual phantasies rooted in the body that we explore in psychoanalysis-body is much more of a given. This is fairly evident to the core of interlocking Lacan with Klein. Actually we are able to get this point to be checked in Klein’s elaborative modification of Freudian semi-biological concept of drive(Trieb).
I have come to the conclusion that for Lacan and Klein there is nothing to be written on the genital level and therefore nothing to presuppose, nothing to introduce and nothing to change. What can be written is the relations between a speaking being and the signifier, phallus(or breast) as its organizing principle, and the "object a"(or "partial object").
목차
序 － 의사소통을 위한 문제구성
1. 삶욕동의 일차적 표현으로서의 성
2. 생물학적 근원으로부터 탈주된 성
3. 몸과의 유관성 : 결정적 대립의 축 또는 대화의 계기
結論 － 임상실제에서의 성
인용문헌
「Abstract」
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
클라인과 라깡의 대화(4) : 분석기술과 해석
현대정신분석
2003 .12
-
멜라니 클라인 정신분석과 아동정신분석의 역사 : 클라인과 안나 프로이트를 중심으로
현대정신분석
2004 .08
-
클라인과 라깡의 대화(2) : 상징형성과 상징계
현대정신분석
2000 .12
-
캐나다 시인 클라인과 영미 모더니즘
신영어영문학
2005 .11
-
안전감 경험으로서의 신앙교육 연구 - 클라인(Melanie Klein)의 대상 관계 이론을 중심으로 -
신학연구
2003 .12
-
클라인과 라깡의 대화(1) : 무의식의 개념화
현대정신분석
1999 .12
-
사물과 죽음의 기억 : 클라인의 예술론
현대정신분석
2008 .12
-
언어의 몸 : 라깡의 정신분석 이론을 중심으로
현대정신분석
2017 .02
-
Freud, Lacan and Japan
한국현대정신분석학회 학술발표대회 프로시딩
2005 .03
-
공리주의 비판담론으로서의 정신분석의 윤리 : 프로이트, 라깡, 클라인을 중심으로
현대정신분석
2014 .08
-
라깡과 법, 그리고 진리
현대정신분석
2002 .12
-
Lacan, l’objet a et l’enfant post-freudien
현대정신분석
2014 .02
-
Poe, Lacan, and Feminism : Woman=Symptom=Mother
신영어영문학
2006 .02
-
자끄 라깡의 임상정신분석 : 〈디킨대학〉 및 〈멜버른 라깡 서클〉에서의 연구경험을 중심으로
현대정신분석
2004 .12
-
"여자는 무엇을 원하는가?" : 라캉 정신분석학이 여성의 몸에 대해 말해주는 것들
현대정신분석
2002 .12
-
한국에 라캉이 도입되는 과정에 관한 이해 : 『현대시사상』(1989.12.–1997.3.)을 중심으로
현대정신분석
2020 .02
-
성, 자본, 권력 : 성(sexuality)의 메타신학
구약논단
2017 .06
-
클라인의 초기 오이디푸스와 여성성 : 초적 여성성과 다른 향유
현대정신분석
2007 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-185-015583761