'Psychological' -- from Moll Flanders to Clarissa (was Re: Left-Hegelianism Today)

[Yoshie Furuhashi]

Ken:
>I can't imagine attempting to explain the widespread appeal
>of something like nationalism or religion without an
>understanding of identification and transference.  If we
>don't know how the mind works, and I'm certainly including
>the cognitive sciences here, I'm pretty sure we won't be
>able to figure out why we do the things we do.

I don't think it is a good idea to employ 'psychological' or even
'psychosocial' explanations for nationalism, religion, etc.  Psychoanalysis
doesn't explain history; history explains psychoanalysis (both its rise and
possible fall).  As Joel Pfister aruged, I think that '"the psychological"
makes sense as part of a larger cultural project to reinvigorate discourses
of "the individual".'  Or take a look at Ian Watt, and compare _Moll
Flanders_ (1722) and _Clarissa_ (1747-48), and see how much 'psychological
depth' that the latter already gained (at the expense of the scope of
actions that Clarissa is allowed, I may add).  _Clarissa_ dazzled Dr.
Johnson as well as Rousseau by its 'knowledge' of 'the human heart.'

To paraphrase Pfister, Freud doesn't, for instance, 'explain' psychological
novels (and other modern cultural and social artifacts); the latter
contributed to the making of Freud.

Yoshie