Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> Ken:
> >I can't imagine attempting to explain the widespread appeal
> >of something like nationalism or religion without an
> >understanding of identification and transference.[snip]
What a dismal thought. Of all the elements of the freudian epic poem, these are the furthest from having any reference to anything except other texts. (That is, that thread in what is some times called postmodernism that sees reality as a text may well be grounded in freud, who is part of the texture of modern literature rather than a serious theorist of mind.) As to identification, we had an interesting thread on this not too long ago which departed from my submitting various OED quotes illustrating various sense of the word "identity." Most of its senses clearly have reference to anything only within the framwork of capitalist individualism.
One can recuperate a lot in freud by seeing him as a modernist poet. Hence Yoshie's further points:
> 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.
It is also interesting that Freud's most famous theory took its name from a literary work so clearly unfreudian (so clearly political rather than "psychological) as *Oedipus*. That play -- perhaps responding to the first appearance of "citizens" as opposed to "subjects" in history -- does however (to the modern reader, but this may be anachronistic) seem to play with that famous question of 19th c. lit, "Who am I?"
Carrol