POSTMODERNISM AND THE SUBJECT;
PESSIMISM OF THE WILL
by Robert M. Young
The splintering and ephemeralization which characterize postmodernism seem
new and alarming, but to a psychoanalytic eye they evoke familiar phenomena:
fragmentation, being in pieces, splitting, part-object relations. Nor is the present the
first time such topics have been considered in the Western intellectual tradition. The
great fissure that exists in our fundamental scheme of thought arose in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries with the breakdown of Aristotelian organicist explanation
(a topic I shall take up again in chapter eight). We have had a major split in our way
of thinking ever since. There were tensions in the late Renaissance which were
tugging away at Aristotelian explanations in terms of formal, final, material and
efficient causes, but in the scientific revolution knowledge and reality were codified
in such a way that mind and body, subject and object, culture and nature, fantasy and
external reality and the whole and the part, were split.
I could go on to list other dualisms with which we have been faced. Of course,
there have always been attempts to heal this fissure, many of them in the late
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. There have been various monisms or efforts
to enthrone one side or other of the great Cartesian split. I am thinking in our own
time of Gestalt, of holism itself, of organicism, of emergentism, of phenomenology
and, in the Marxist tradition, the point of view of totality. So, let us also note that
these are not altogether new questions. I always find that if I can reconnect something
which startles me with the history of thought, it makes me feel a little better.
I want to begin what I have to say in this chapter with three statements. First, I
am weary and live in a state of continual spiritual deprivation. Second, it is not given
to us to complete the task, but we may not give it up. Third, One must imagine
Sisyphus happy. I say these things so as not to be even more cliched and use the
epigram for all serious progressives of recent times: ‘pessimism of the intellect,
optimism of the will’ (coined by Romain Rolland but made into a programmatic
slogan by the leading figure in Italian Marxism, Antonio Gramsci, as early as 1919;
Gramsci, 1929-35, p. 175n). In more recent times, Paul Simon said, ‘I don’t know a
soul that’s not been battered; I don’t have a friend who feels at ease. I don’t know a
dream that’s not been shattered or driven to its knees’ (Simon, 1973).
It is in this spirit that I want to approach the question: ‘Is there a domain of
subjectivity which is irreducible to social determinations — incongruent with formal
knowledge in any given discipline — yet relevant to and vital for the future of the
human sciences?’ My answer is yes, but not just for ‘the human sciences’. This phrase
begs the question: subjectivity is relevant and vital for humanity, not just for
‘disciplines’ which we all call sciences but also for human nature — for human nature
inside history, for humanity, which is able to hope and to transcend the ‘is’ in the
name of a vision of the ‘ought’, but not to be shattered by the gulf between them,
which seems to me to be what we are faced with in postmodernist deconstruction.
I am not a close student of the history that has led people to ask if the time has
come to treat the subject as a prodigal and allow it back into the family of our
concepts. Even so, I am not just daunted by, but am also suspicious of, the rhetoric of
this debate. For me, the subject never went away — for a reason you may at first find
eccentric. Throughout the period during which formalisms, including structuralist and
post-structuralist ideas, were appealing to the category of science or scientificity for
legitimacy, my own research on the categories of science was finding subjectivity at
the heart of the deepest scientific concepts. When I say deepest, I do mean deep:
gravity/gravitas, affinity/attraction, and natural selection. These are the deepest
concepts in the most respectable of the natural sciences — physics, chemistry and
biology. Natural selection — an anthropomorphic metaphor — is the concept which
links life to the rest of nature and human nature to the history of life. It is the basis of
the historicity of all that is, and it is through the concept of historicity that in my own
work I have tried to link Darwin and Marx.
I was finding purposeful and teleological reasoning in the most reductionist of
the biological disciplines and anthropomorphism at the heart of the very human
sciences which were themselves keenest to be seen as respectable according to the
model of the physical sciences. Others (and this occurred rather early in my own
training in the history and philosophy of science) were finding insight and
perceptiveness in the secret places of the most behaviourist research programmes and
deeply cathected language communities in the most analytically solipsistic private
domains of the analysis of language. Charles Taylor (1964) persuaded us that
behaviourist rats have insight, while Wittgenstein (1953) and his followers put paid to
the possibility of a private language. These seem to me to be important analogies to
what is being talked about here.
So, while others were finding science in Marxism and linguistics in the
unconscious, I was among those who were finding humanism and values at the heart
of the very sciences to which the formalists were appealing for legitimacy. Of course,
I was not alone in this work. It had its roots in the critique of modern science’s
reductionist paradigm of explanation, especially the mind-body dichotomy and the
primary-secondary quality distinction which I discussed above in referring to the work
of Alfred North Whitehead and Edwin Arthur Burtt, as well as the other attempts at
holism mentioned earlier. These were (coming from different directions) close
cousins to the humanistic Marxism of the Frankfurt School of critical theory and their
part-allies (who may have lost their political nerve), the hermeneuticists. Coming
from yet another direction are the American pragmatists, closely allied with a highly
sophisticated group of analytical philosophers. I am thinking here of Richard Rorty on
metaphor and stories at the heart of knowing. He, following Nietzsche, defines truth
as ‘a mobile army of metaphors’, including and especially the metaphors at the heart
of science (my remarks about gravity and gravitas are drawn from a lecture of his).
He argues in ‘The Contingency of Selfhood’ (1989) for accepting metaphor over
literal truth, for a humanocentric rather than an objective world, but he does so
without loss of hope — that is, without jettisoning the concept of self or subject
(Rorty, 1989, pp. 17, 27, 37-41)
One route to return to the subject, then, leads to narrative or, as I saw it put
recently, ‘Let’s cut the crap and get on with the yarn’. We live, says Rorty, in story
after story — coherent, with plots and meanings, however multi-layered. ‘Yarns’ is
another way of appropriating the concept of narrative discourse, serving rather than
supplanting the human subject. A failed narrative remains human, while a failed
science is vacuous. We find that if we attempt to build a science out of the subject and
we fail, we are left in pieces, whereas a bad yarn is still a yarn, a human story.
There is one more main strand in my argument, but I shall return to it later. It
overlaps in some ways with the work of the Frankfurt School, that is, psychoanalysis,
especially in its object relations form. It should be acknowledged that a
deconstructionist would want to place psychoanalysis and the other traditions I have
mentioned inside the history and sociology of knowledge, but the infinite regress
generated by doing that plagues us all and does not favour nihilistic conclusions any
more than objectivist ones. Psychoanalysis says to me that the expunging of the
subject is simply not on, but I shall spell this out later in the chapter.
There is another important sense, already considered in chapter one, in which
we have made this mess for ourselves, because of our own history and our own sense
of historicity and contingency. If we say that human nature is an ensemble of social
relations and that truth is made and not found, that is, if we insist upon the social
construction of the self and of knowledge, we will find on the other side of the coin of
social construction the possibility of deconstruction without remainder. My thesis is
that the possibility of deconstruction (and I here mean this conceptually) finds the self
at the heart of the project, just as the critics of other fragmenting and reductionist
programmes find anthropomorphic and humanocentric concepts at the heart of their
projects.
You may say that science is a tedious or irrelevant starting point, but I should
remind you that modernism was itself a scientism — avowedly so — and
postmodernism is a symptom of the failure of the abstracted scientistic project.
Among the resonances of the modernist project were purity, universality, progress,
decontextualised and self-reflexive objects (buildings and novels, for example), rather
than articulated and contextualised ones. This is true in various ways of
functionalism, positivism, Leavisite literary criticism and formalism itself, as a metadiscipline.
I well remember the grip of these scientisms during my own undergraduate
education in the early 1950s. I took home from my first year at Yale a book on logic,
because I wanted to ‘learn to think’. Believe it or not I would come home from
working in a Ford factory every night and read a textbook on logic. I studied symbolic
logic the next year and vividly recall an encounter in my final year. I was taking a
stroll with the supervisor of my Scholars of the House Project on self-reflection, the
eminent Whitehead scholar, Nathaniel Lawrence. We encountered the arch-positivist,
Arthur Pap, walking briskly towards us on a New Haven street. Lawrence said,
‘Hello, Arthur. Nice day’. Pap replied, ‘I presume you are speaking metaphorically’.
Nobody laughed.
I also recall how earnestly I tried to read philosophical articles which began,
‘Take an X such that...’ or ‘Y is true if and only if...’ This philosophical project was
exactly analogous to the overall aims of formalism described by Raymond Williams
as seeking to ‘displace and divert our diverse actual confusions, pains and anxieties’
(Williams, 1986, p. 31). It was not until decades later that I became fully aware that
this was the high tide of philosophy looking to science for a model for all knowing,
with other disciplines following suit. Richard Rorty, who had taught me in my first
year, has written a lovely essay on this period, during which an attempt was being
made ‘to get philosophy out of the “humanities” and into the “sciences” (Rorty, 1982,
p. 219). He goes on to characterise more recent times in which scientific method is
seen by many as ‘the mask behind which lurks the cruelty and despair of a nihilistic
age’ (p. 229). That is how far the debate has moved since the 1950s.
As I see it, then, both formalism, with its isolation of the object, and
contextualism, with its attempt to achieve an exhaustive analysis of articulations, have
contributed greatly to our present distress. When a Marxist asks whether or not
determinism and articulations exhaust the subject, this is the Continental version of
the Humean empiricist question about the self discussed in chapter one. David
Hume’s ‘bundle of sensations’ plays the same role as a candidate for lack of a centre
as an ensemble of social relations.
However — and this is my key point — much depends on whether one
embarks on such a project with a pessimistic or an optimistic aim. Social location and
embedding can either dissolve the subject or achieve specificity and enrichment. It
can exhaust it and scoop out its living, unique individuality, or it can illuminate the
whole, analyse in order to reconstitute, to fathom, to enhance, to understand better.
Contingency can fragment, or it can relate. The same is true of other helpful notions. I
am thinking of ‘inscribing’, of structural and epochal causation, of multiple and multilayered causation, of the concept of overdetermination. Each can enrich and
illuminate or impoverish and exhaust.
Kierkegaard accused Hegel of building a huge castle and then finding himself
sitting outside it. I used to take note of the outsideness; I now note the exiled location
of the self. It is a silly place to end up. The ‘Marx versus Nietzsche’ lineages need not
force us to a dichotomy between totality, on the one hand, and utter fragmentation, on
the other. The fact that the subject and the concept of the subject are contingent does
not eliminate either the premise or the possibility— the project — of coherence. The
postmodernist is no longer sanguine about science but indulges instead in cynicism
rather than critique. The object is jettisoned, while the point of critique is to
interrogate in searching ways in order to enhance understanding, to do better.
I need hardly spend much time on despairing elements of the subject and the
consequences of this for any unified sense of human nature. Both have been deontologised, while the signifier has been ontologised. Postmodernists claim that the
link can be cut between the signifier and the signified, between the word and the
object, by leaving out meaning, caring, values. The concept of mediation is itself
thrown out. Marike Finlay describes postmodernity as ‘a psychotic defence against
loss of referential identity’ (Finlay, 1989, p. 59). She also speaks of it as a culturally
generalised psychosis. The late and greatly lamented Christopher Lasch says
something similar in his writings on narcissism and the minimal self: that the
commodity world is too alien to serve as a set of transitional objects and phenomena,
that the current generation is characterised by ‘lack of project’, a position echoed in
expositions of postmodernism (e.g., Newman, 1989). We are left with something
fragmented, a bricolage , parody, small-scale, anti-utopian, abandoning the project of
totality. It is consumerist, cynical, and offers only the diversions of play in return for
all it takes away. The hopes of a vision of a better world have been labelled as
idealization and trashed, converting the remains into a dumping ground, a patsy, a
scapegoat. A person whose projects in the 1960s and 70s evoked my admiration, who
now finds himself well-placed in career terms, said to me recently that his main
preoccupation is how to deal with disappointment and how to avoid falling into
bitterness.
As I was pondering these matters and trying to find a way of conveying my
belief that we are dealing with both a logical point and a moral and political question
about keeping the faith, I found myself reflecting on Cubism. There cannot be a more
historically contingent phenomenon in culture than this one, which can be said to
have begun with a single painting in 1907, Les Damoiselles d’Avignon, and peaked in
the 1920s (a period during which Freud penned some of his major writings). Surely
the point about Cubism, as about Surrealism and Dada, was to get past convention
and the sieves of jadedness and to reach something deeper in the human spirit and
more illuminating. The postmodernist seems to me to pronounce the jaded all we can
have. Cubism, on the contrary, still holds the object; it fragments or rises above it in
the name of reaching deeper. While breaking with the European illusionist tradition,
its ultimate aims are realistic. Non-perspectival forms and multiple perceptions
achieve discrete points of view that are meant to accumulate and then return to the
composite shape. (Fry, 1966, p. 37).
The abstraction, the geometrization, the selective exaggeration, the deliberate
abandonment of the techniques of perspective and foreshortening are all
deconstructive, but they are all in the service of illuminating the whole and are always
in tension with the imaginatively reconstituted object. The artist, like a Winnicottian
good-enough mother, must know just how far to go so as not to break the link and
produce hyperintellectualism or madness. The link with the primitive is evident in the
influence on Cubism via what Picasso drew from African and Andalucian art, notably
woodcarvings which stress the most basic shapes and images, especially of the face.
All these points were forcibly driven home to me while wandering around the Tate
Gallery exhibition of the Douglas Cooper collection of paintings by Picasso, Gris,
Léger, Braque and Klee. The historical relativists and sociologists of knowledge will
say that I am only digging myself in deeper. It does not take an art historian to point
out to me what came after Cubism, and each may draw her or his own conclusion as
to whether or not the object has been lost or the human spirit continues to be reached
by abstract art. My own taste says no, it does not, but my knowledge of the
potentialities of reconstitution and reparation insists yes.
I now want to turn an analytic eye to the urge to dismiss the subject. I
experience it as despairing, spiteful and spoiling (I am using these terms in both a
Kleinian and a lay sense). When Finlay uses the term ‘psychotic defence’, it is
important to not both words. There is an agency conducting the defence. As R. D.
Laing used to say, the psychotic has built a cocoon of symptoms to preserve the self.
The hebephrenic or the simple schizophrenic, the autistic child — each can
understand what is said to him or her. Anyone who has worked with catatonics in a
mental hospital will have a story to tell about one who improves after prolonged
immobility and silence and tells you something you said to them months or even years
earlier when he or she was apparently completely out of contact. There are debates in
psychoanalysis about this matter, but, as I said in chapter one, there is common
ground that there cannot be no object. The self is not completely fragmented; there is
always an ego; there is the coherence of a process. Otherwise the therapeutic work
that has been done so successfully with psychotics simply could not get off the
ground. It would be heartbreaking (instead of just very, very hard) and always a
loser’s game. But it is not. As the work of Laing (1960), Berke (Barnes and Berke,
1971; Berke, 1989), Searles (1960, 1965), Barham (1988), Jackson (1994) and Rey
(1994), among others (Ellwood, 1995), has shown, it is among the most exciting and
rewarding kinds of work you can do.
In addition to those writers, Klein, Winnicott, Bion, Meltzer, Tustin,
Rosenfeld and Segal have all looked into the vicissitudes of the most primitive, the
regressed, the psychotic processes of splitting, fragmentation, projective
identification, autism, the autistic cysts that exist in normal people (S. Klein, 1980).
These analysts are close students of the fragility of the self and the role of symbolism
in culture and in its maintenance. Closely analogous things can be said about the work
of Balint, Fairbairn and Guntrip. We have damaged objects, part-objects, and failed
primary object relations; we have transitional objects, spaces, phenomena. Indeed,
Winnicott claims that all of culture exists in a transitional space (see below, ch. 6).
Yet all their patients — even the most regressed and primitive and crazy — retain
contact with the object and, as I explained in chapter one, the object relations theory
which underlies current psychoanalysis presupposes it.
The work of these people allows us to take on board the phenomena of
splitting, fragmentation and projecting the split off bits (unacceptable because
despised or taboo) and continue to perceive these and other psychotic mechanisms as
part of, rather than an epitaph to, coherent, albeit damaged, object relations. The
mechanisms of splitting and projective identification lie at the basis of Bion’s theory
of thinking (see Hinshelwood, 1991, pp. 179-208, 231-7) and, in exaggerated form,
are at the heart of psychotic mechanisms at work in all of us (see Young, 1994, ch. 5;
1995). But these mechanisms serve ongoing object relations, that is, the survival of
the subject. All experience, no matter how sophisticated, abstract, alienated or mad,
continues to be mediated through the object. The primitive path is always trodden,
never superseded. Not only does primitive emotional experience come first; it comes
first, last and always.
I am saying at this point that psychoanalytic object relations theory can easily
accommodate the distressed and cynical reaction of the failed hopes of the present
generation, who dreamed so much a quarter of a century ago. The project then
becomes one of survival, of holding on, and the extremely slow processes of
containment, detoxification and reparation which have taken so many of us into
analysis and some of us into becoming therapists. I want now to look deeper and
further back in our intellectual tradition and end by speaking of ontology. I really
meant this at its most fundamental, that is, the centrality of the concept of ‘person’
lying behind the original mind-body split in the seventeenth century, with its
epistemological representation in the primary-secondary quality distinction (between
shape, on the one hand, and taste, smell, colour and other ‘subjective’ qualities, on the
other). We elaborate conceptual apparatuses. This is not a voluntary or individualistic
process but a historical one: decisions were made about knowledge and ‘being’ in the
scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
As any one-time Maoist could tell you, voluntarism cannot throw off history’s
— or nature’s — ‘insolent yoke’. Even so, an epoch or a culture or a sub-culture
elaborates conceptual apparatuses; it is a cultural activity. It is the task of searching
and transcending vision — of critique — to evaluate their deep assumptions and alter
them, whatever struggle this may require. However, as we will consider at greater
length in chapter three, a given ideology remains historical and amenable to contest: it
is second nature, not first nature, no matter how deeply sedimented or embedded it
may be. Before mind, body and language was the person. Strawson (1959) and others
have shown that the concept of person is ontologically prior to that of mind and body,
subject and object. The splits which plague our ontology and epistemology are
secondary to the concept of person. As I said at the beginning, splits are the keynote,
but the object is conceptually and developmentally prior.
A person in history has a biography. I offer the concept of biography as the
place where the resolution of large- and small-scale forces meet and also where
conscious and unconscious forces meet. I do not mean this in order to promote a
possessive individualism but to place history inside the subject rather than dissolving
the subject into history, since the concept of history has no meaning apart from the
experiences of subjects.
Something similar has been said of language by Marike Finlay: ‘The major
difference between the modern and the postmodern epochs resides in their respective
attitudes towards the recognition of the split in language between sign and concept or
referent. The modern constantly laments that cleavage and strives to repair the gap if
separation by using the symbolic as mediator of identity and difference [hear the
echoes of Winnicott and Segal]. The postmodern does not lament the split; it accepts
it and dissolves the other, be it concept, referent or person, into nonexistence’ (Finlay,
1989, p. 53).
Note, however, that the possession of a capacity for symbolic language has
been, at least since Descartes, a unique defining characteristic of human subjects
(Young, 1967). Before discourse spoke the subject, the resolution of historical forces
spoke the discourse. In the beginning were the instinct, the need, the impulse and the
value, not the word. We must tolerate the contradiction that the word was God, while
at the same time it was with God — the repository of a culture’s husbanded
symbolism of the transcendent.
Theories and political positions mediate values through symbolism. For
example, Marxism is about mediation, but it is essential to keep a grip on what things
are mediations of. Otherwise, it is an undialectical use, a positivist appropriation, of
Marxism. Language is a mediation. I insist that it is a mediation of collective
subjectivity — epochal resolutions of forces, inflected through individual
consciousness and the unconscious: inflected through, not inscribed upon. (Whenever
I hear about things being inscribed I recall the Kafka short story where a person’s
crime is carved into his body: crude and brutal punishment, not subtle.)
It is no accident that my language is becoming increasingly biblical, because it
is to the Bible that I now wish to turn. One of the things of which postmodernism is a
symptom — along with the failure of scientism and the idea of progress — is the
absence of the transcendent in both psychoanalysis and Marxism, something Joel
Kovel has attempted to rectify in his work on liberation theology and the spirit (1991).
Lest I be misunderstood in what I am about to convey, I speak as a secular radical, but
I want to close this chapter by reminding the reader of the deep and persistent
existence of hope for coherence in the face of just how complex and awful the world
is.
I have had reason to reflect on loss and endurance in my own life and in the
face of the extinguishing of a shining beacon as a result of the death of Raymond
Williams. How do we endure and hope? Who will be our role model, now that our
role model is gone? How do we as a Kleinian would put it, abide in the depressive
position? I here offer a word about my own object. As a child I longed to meet a
certain Shirley Goodness, whose wonders were in such painful contrast with the
incapacity of my own invalid and depressed mother. I had heard of Shirley Goodness
so often in church. The caring object, the mixture of good and bad, the bearing of the
truth in the valley of the shadow of death and in the presence of mine enemies:
containment and peace in green pastures and by still waters. No irreparable depletion:
I shall not want. An abundance: my cup runneth over. Read this in a special way. Try
to experience it as the testament of a small child speaking to its object or source of
security, of hope and endurance:
The Lord is my shepherd: I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me
beside the
still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of
righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I
will fear no evil: for though art with me; thy rod and
thy staff they
comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine
enemies:
thou anointest my head with oil; my cup
runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of
my
life:
and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for
ever.
Shirley also brings to mind Bion’s childhood experience of the Lord’s Prayer: ‘Arf
Arfur...Oo Arf in Mphm’ (Bion, 1982, p. 9). (First Corinthians Chapter Thirteen
invites a similar rendering with respect to faith, hope and charity.)
One of my reasons for drawing attention to the Twenty-third Psalm is to say
something about historicity. Although the object is inside history, at the deepest level
of the Judeo-Christian tradition, it transcends period. It does not do so completely, but
if that psalm touches you, we cannot say that it does not transcend history at all. This
is the best known of the one hundred and fifty Jewish psalms. There is a history of the
psalms, as there is of any text or any cultural matter. They have been perpetually
chanted in monasteries since the sixth century. Their settings have changed, as have
the languages in which they have been chanted. They were sung in Latin for over a
thousand years, put into the vernacular in the sixteenth century and into English in the
1530s. The psalms have served as a bridge from Judaism to Christianity and provided
assurance, protection, well-being and comfort across the centuries and in the face of
adversity.
Just in case all this example is a candidate for being dismissed as the nostalgic
self-indulgence of a superannuated duffer, here are lines from the best-selling rock
album from the U2 ‘Rattle and Hum’ tour (1988): ‘Yea, though I walk in the valley of
the shadow, yet I will fear no evil. I will curse thy rod and staff. They no longer
comfort me. Love rescue me.’ A similar poignant longing is found (complete with
church choir) on the track, ‘I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For’.
We must therefore find a place for relative historicity, our appropriation of the
concept of relative autonomy in cultural studies. My point is that throughout our
intellectual and spiritual tradition — pace the historicity of the subject — the object
abides, and therefore so does the subject.
The self is an imputed concept, but so are human nature, subjectivity, totality,
fragmentation, Kantian schemata, socialism, and, for that matter, the external world,
whether we think it fragmented or coherent. To believe otherwise is despairing; it is
paranoid-schizoid. In short, it is pessimism of the will. So I say again: cut the crap and
get on with the yarn. We are all psalmists, all writers of epistles, whether to
Corinthians or to lovedones or to colleagues.
In conclusion, I have a slightly sardonic observation: I believe that the
formalists and post-formalists have painted themselves into a corner. People whom I
found extremely haughty a few years ago are being nicer to me now. We asked them
for bread, and they gave us stones. They are now finding this out for themselves.
Many of the most Lacanian intellectuals are in Kleinian or Middle Group analyses.
Each wants someone to love him or her best. Film-makers who did the most abstract
exercises have returned to narrative naturalism (sometimes with a fig-leaf of lots of
quotations from earlier films). People who took up the most extreme positions about
social relations are now trying to struggle in couples and with children (and some left
it too late and have deep regrets). Many things accused of being paper tigers have
mauled their mockers — in the left and among feminists. Many of those who made
the most scathing critiques of conventional culture are heard talking avidly about soap
operas, post-Douglas Sirk readings of television series such as Dallas, the power of
romantic novels and what it is that doughty Conservative women know that we do
not. Just as religion knows something that we do not, so does conventional society. If
our critique leads to an alienation that leaves us bitter, without hope, in pieces and
freezing in the cold, we must think again about what we dismantle and from what
point of view we do it. If our conceptual tools serve us ill, we must make a new
testament.
Paper read at multidisciplinary conference on ‘Rehinking the Subject in Discourse’
McGill University, Montreal, March 1988; published inDiscours Social/SSocial
Discourse 2: 69-81,1989; also in Free Associations. 16: 81-96, 1989; also to appear
in a collection, Whatever Happened to Human Nature? (Process Press, in press).
REFERENCES
(Place of publication is London unless otherwise specified.)
Appignanesi, Lisa, ed. (1989) Postmodernism: ICA Documents. Free Association
Books.
Balint, Michael (1952) Primary Love and Psycho-analytic Technique; enlarged ed.,
1965. Tavistock.
Barham, Peter (1984) Schizophrenia and Human Value. Oxford: Blackwell; reprinted
Free Association Books, 1993.
Barnes, Mary and Berke, Joseph (1971) Mary Barnes: Two Accounts of a Journey
through Madness. MacGibbon and Kee; reprinted Free Association Books,
1991.
Berger, Peter and Luckmann, Thomas (1967) The Social Construction of Reality.
Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday Anchor.
Berke, Joseph (1989) The Tyranny of Malice: Exploring the Dark Side of Character
and Culture. Simon and Schuster.
Bernstein, Richard (1986) ‘What is the Difference That Makes a Difference? H. G.
Gadamer, J. Habermas and R. Rorty’, in Philosophical Profiles: Essays in
Pragmatic Mode. Cambridge: Polity, pp. 58—93.
Bion, Wilfred R. (1977) Seven Servants: Four Works by Wilfred Bion. N. Y.:
Aronson.
______ (1982) The Long Weekend, 1897-1919: Part of a Life: Abingdon: Fleetwood;
reprinted Free Association Books, 1986.
Burtt, Edwin A. (1932) The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science,
2nd ed. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Camus, Albert (1955) ‘The Myth of Sisyphus’, in The Myth of Sisyphus and Other
Essays. Knopf; reprinted N. Y.: Vintage, 1959, pp. 88-91.
Cassirer, Ernst (1953-57) Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, 3 vols. New Haven, CT:
Yale.
Copi, I. M. (1953) An Introduction to Logic. N. Y.: Macmillan.
Ellwood, Jane, ed. (1995) Psychosis: Treatment of Choice? Jessica Kingsley.
Fairbairn, W. R. D. (1952) Psychoanalytic Studies of the Personality. Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Finlay, Marike (1989) ‘Post-modernising Psychoanalysis /Psychoanalysing Postmodernity: Reontologising the Subject in Discourse’, Free Assns. no. 16: 43-80.
Fitch, Frederick B. (1952) Symbolic Logic. N. Y.: Ronald.
Fry, E. L. (1966) Cubism. Thames & Hudson.
Gramsci, Antonio (1929-35) Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio
Gramsci. Lawrence and Wishart, 1971.
Greenberg, Jay R. and Mitchell, Stephen A. (1983) Object Relations in
Psychoanalytic Theory. Harvard.
Grotstein, J. S., ed. (1983) Do I Dare Disturb the Universe? A Memorial to Wilfred R.
Bion. Caesura; reprinted Maresfield, 1983.
Guntrip, Harry (1977) Psychoanalytic Theory, Therapy and the Self. Maresfield.
Hinshelwood, R. D. (1991) A Dictionary of Kleinian Thought, 2nd ed. Free
Association Books.
Hume, David (1738) A Treatise on Human Nature, 2 vols. Dent, 1911.
Jackson, Murray and Williams, Paul (1994) Unimaginable Storms: A Search for
Meaning in Psychosis. Karnac.
Jacoby, Russell (1971) ‘Towards a Critique of Automatic Marxism: The Politics of
Philosophy from Lukács to the Frankfurt School’, Telos no. 10: 119-46.
Jameson, Frederic (1991) Postmodernism: Or , The Cultural Logic of Late
Capitalism. Verso.
Jay, Martin (1973) The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School
and the Institute of Social Research 1923-1950. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
______ (1984) Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to
Habermas. Cambridge: Polity.
Kierkegaard, S. (1846) Concluding Unscientific Postscript to the Philosophical
Fragments: a Mimic-Pathetic-Dialectic Composition. An Existential
Contribution. Princeton: Princeton, 1944.
Klein, Melanie (1975) The Writings of Melanie Klein, 4 vols. Hogarth; reprinted
Virago, 1988.
______ et al., eds. (1955) New Directions in Psycho-Analysis: The Significance of
Infant Conflicts in the Patterns of Adult Behaviour. Tavistock; reprinted
Maresfield
Klein, Sydney (1980 ‘Autistic Phenomena in Neurotic Patients’, Int. J. Psycho-Anal.
61: 395-401.
Kohon, Gregorio (1985) ‘Objects Are Not People’, Free Assns. no. 2: 19-30.
______, ed. (1986) The British School of Psychoanalysis: The Independent Tradition.
Free Association Books.
Kovel, Joel (1988) The Radical Spirit: Essays on Psychoanalysis and Society. Free
Association Books.
______ (1991) History and Spirit. Boston: Beacon.
Laing, Ronald D. (1960) The Divided Self: An Existential Study of Sanity and
Madness. Tavistock; reprinted Penguin, 1965.
Langer, Suzanne K. (1942) Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.
Lasch, Christopher (1979) The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of
Diminishing Expectations. N. Y.: Norton.
______ (1985) The Minimal Self: Psychic Survival in Troubled Times. Picador.
Lyotard, J. F. (1984) The Post-Modern Condition: A Report on Knowledge.
Manchester: Manchester..
Mannheim, Karl (1929-31) Ideology and Utopia an Introduction to the Sociology of
Knowledge. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Marcuse, Herbert 1955) Eros and Civilization: A Philosophical Inqiry into Freud.
Boston, MA: Beacon; 2nd ed., with a new preface and postscript by the author.
Allen Lane: Penguin Press, 1969.
______ (1964) One Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial
Societies. Routledge & Kegan Paul; reprinted Ark, 1986.
Meltzer, Donald et al. (1975) Explorations in Autism. Strath Tay: Clunie.
Merquior, J. G. (1986) From Prague to Paris: A Critique of Structuralist and PostStructuralist Thought. Verso.
Newman, Michael (1989) ‘Revising Modernism, Representing Postmodernism’, in
Appignanesi (1989), pp. 95-154.
Pap, Arthur (1963) An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Eyre and
Spottiswoode.
Pfeil, F. (1985) ‘Makin’ Flippy-Floppy: Postmodernism and the Baby Boom PMC’, in
M. Davis, et al., eds, The Year Left: An American Socialist Yearbook. Verso, pp.
268-95.
Rey, Henri (1994) Universals of Psychoanalysis in the Treatment of Psychotic and
Borderline States: Factors of Space-Time and Language. Free Association
Books.
Richards, Barry, ed. (1984) Capitalism and Infancy: Essays on Psychoanalysis and
Politics. Free Association Books.
Rorty, Richard (1980) Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.. Oxford: Blackwell.
______ (1982) Consequences of Pragmatism (Essays: 1972-80). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
______ (1989) Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Rosenfeld, Herbert (1965) Psychotic States. Hogarth; reprinted Maresfield, 1982.
______(1987) Impasse and Interpretation: Therapeutic and Anti-Therapeutic
Factors in Psychoanalytic Treatment of Psychotic, Borderline, and Neurotic
Patients. Routledge.
Searles, Harold (1960 The Nonhuman Environment: In normal Development and in
Schizophrenia. Madison, CT: International Universities.
______ (1965) Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects. Hogarth;
reprinted Karnac, 1986.
Segal, Hanna (1973) Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein. Hogarth; reprinted
Karnac, 1988.
______ (1981) The Work of Hanna Segal: A Kleinian Approach to Clinical Practice.
Aronson; reprinted Free Association Books/ Maresfield Library, 1986.
Simon, Paul (1973) ‘American Tune’, There Goes Rhymin’ Simon. CBS 69035.
Skinner, Quentin R. D. 91985) The Return to Grand Theory in the Human Sciences.
Cambridge: Cambridge.
Strawson, P. F. (1959) Individuals: An Essay in Descriptive Metaphysics. Methuen.
Sutherland, J. D. (1980) ‘The British Object Relations Theorists: Balint, Winnicott,
Fairbairn, Guntrip’, J. Am. Psychoanal. Assn. 28: 829-60.
Taylor, Charles (1964) The Explanation of Behaviour. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Tustin, Frances (1986) Autistic Barriers in Neurotic Patients. Karnac.
Whitehead, Alfred N. (1926) Science and the Modern World. Macmillan; reprinted
Free Association Books, 1985.
Williams, Raymond (1986) ‘The Uses of Cultural Theory’, New Left Rev. no. 158:
19-31.
Winnicott, Donald W. (1951) ‘Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena’, in
Through Paediatrics to Psycho-Analysis. Hogarth, 1982, pp. pp. 229-42.
______ (1952) ‘Psychoses and Child Care’, in Ibid., pp. 219-28.
______ (1988) Human Nature. Free Association Books.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1953) Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell.
Young, Robert. M. (1966) ‘Scholarship and the History of the Behavioural Sciences’,
Hist. of Sci. 2: 1-51.
______ (1966a) ‘The Divided Science’, Delta 38: 13-18.
______ (1967) ‘Animal Soul’, in P. Edwards, ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N. Y.:
Macmillan, vol. 1, pp. 122-27.
______ (1967a) ‘Philosophy of Mind and Related Issues’, Brit. J. Philos. Sci. 18:
325-330.
______ (1968) ‘Association of Ideas’, in P. P. Wiener, ed. Dictionary of the History
of Ideas. N. Y.: Scribner’s, 1968-74, vol. 1, pp. 111-18.
______ (1971) ‘Evolutionary Biology and Ideology: Then and Now’, Sci. Stud. 1:
177-206.
______ (1973) 'The Human Limits of Nature', in J. Benthall, ed., The Limits of
Human Nature. Allen Lane, pp. 235-74.
______ (1977) 'Science is Social Relations', Radical Sci. J. no. 5: 65-131.
______ (1979 ‘How Societies Constitute Their Knowledge: A Labour Process
Perspective (typescript).
______ (1979a) ‘Science is a Labour Process’, Sci. for the People nos. 43/44: 31-6.
______ (1979b) ‘Why Are Figures so Significant? The Role and the Critique of
Quantification’, in J. Irvine et al., eds., Demystifying Social Statistics. Pluto, pp.
63-75.
______ (1981) 'The Naturalization of Value Systems in the Human Sciences', in
Problems in the Biological and Human Sciences, Milton Keynes: Open
University Press, pp. 63-110.
______ (1985) ‘Darwinism is Social’, in David Kohn, ed., The Darwinian Heritage.
Princeton: Princeton, pp. 609-38.
______(1985a) Darwin's Metaphor: Nature's Place in Victorian Culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge.
______ (1985b) ‘Is Nature a Labour Process?’, in L. Levidow and R. M. Young, eds.,
Science, Technology and the Labour Process: Marxist Studies. Free Association
Books, vol. 2, pp. 206-32.
______ (1986) ‘The Dense Medium: Television as Technology’, Political Papers 13:
3-5.
______ (1986a) 'Life among the Mediations: Labour, Groups, Breasts', talk delivered
to Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge.
______ (1986b) ‘Sigmund Freud: Scientist and/or Humanist’, Free Assns. no. 6: 735.
______ (1987) ‘Biography: The Basic Discipline for a Human Science’, Free Assns.
no. 11: 108-30.
______ (1987a) ‘Darwin and the Genre of Biography’, in George Levine, ed., One
Culture: Essays in Science and Literature. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, pp. 203-24.
______(1987a) 'Racist Society, Racist Science', in D. Gill and L. Levidow, eds., AntiRacist Science Teaching. Free Association Books, pp. 16-42; reprinted in D.
Gill et al., eds., Racism and Education: Structures and Strategies . Sage, 1992,
pp. 303-19.
______ (1988) 'Darwin, Marx, Freud and the Foundations of the Human Sciences',
Cheiron Newsletter. Spring, pp. 7-12.
______ (1989) ‘Persons, Organisms... and Primary Qualities’, in J. Moore, ed.,
History, Humanity and Evolution: Essays for John C. Greene. Cambridge:
Cambridge, pp. 375-401.
______ (1989a) ‘The Role of Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy in the Human
Sciences’, paper presented to Zangwill Club, Department of Experimental
Psychology, University of Cambridge.
______ (1989b) 'Transitional Phenomena: Production and Consumption', in B.
Richards, ed., Crises of the Self: Further Essays on Psychoanalysis and Politics.
Free Association Books, pp. 57-74.
______ (1990) ‘The Mind-Body Problem’, in Robert C. Olby et al., eds. Companion
to the History of Modern Science. Routledge, pp. 702-11.
______ (1995) ‘Across the Borderline’, in Ellwood (1995).
______ et al. (1981) ‘Science, Technology, Medicine and the Socialist Movement’,
Rad. Sci. J. 11: 3-70.
Copyright: The Author
Address for correspondende: 26 Freegrove Road, London N7 9RQ
robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk