Join the thumb and middle finger: Dora and Schreber form a
circle. That’s where we have to try to think in spite of all … 1.
Philippe Sollers
I
In 1977 verskyn “Freud’s Hand”, daardie uitmuntende artikel van Philippe Sollers opgeneem in Yale French Studies. Dit is vertaal deur Barbara Johnson oor wie daar in die vorige bydrae geskryf is.
Sollers, die eggenoot van Julia Kristeva, is veral bekend om sy werk by Tel Quel. Hy figureer as romankarakter in Philip Roth se Operation Shylock (1993) en in Atomised (1998) van Michel Houellebecq. In die literêre krimie deur Laurent Binet, The Seventh Function of Language, gebaseer op die dood van Roland Barthes wat in 2017 verskyn het, is hy eweneens ‘n herkenbare karakter. Alles rondom verdagmakery dat Kristeva dalk ‘n spioen was?
http://joanhambidge.blogspot.com/2018/03/resensie-laurent-binet-7th-function-of.html Besoek 17 September 2022
Sollers is ‘n enorm komplekse figuur: teoretikus én skrywer.
Soms is daar polifoniese tekste saam met Kristeva soos Marriage as a Fine Art.
Twee teoretici wat apart woon, maar ‘n sterk intellektuele kontrak gesluit het.
H (vertaal in 2015) en tekste soos A Strange Solitude (Une Curieuse Solitude). Dit het oorspronklik in 1958 verskyn en is vertaal in 1959. H is ‘n eksperimentele roman sonder paragrawe, hoofletters of punktuasie. Sowel Sollers as Cixous het ‘n groot bewondering vir James Joyce gehad. Die invloed van Finnegan’s Wake kan gesien word op H.
Roland Barthes het groot respek vir sy werk gehad. Die sogenaamde revenge of the signified, soos Barthes hierdie soort tekste tipeer. (“The Play of the Caleidoscope”, 198 – 204, opgeneem in die onderhoude gevoer met Barthes: The Grain of the Voice van 1985.)
II
Waarom psigoanalities lees?, vra skeptici dikwels. Freud is vir die gemiddelde leser gelyk aan die ontdekking van seksuele drange, terwyl literatuurteoretici sy werk benader as ‘n komplekse analise van taal, hoe metafore en metonimia werk, transferensie en cathexis. (Hoe sou ‘n mens Besetzung in Afrikaans perfek vertaal?) Auden het onder meer ‘n belangrike gedig oor Freud geskryf. 2. Dalk ‘n ooreenkoms tussen digkuns en psigoanalise wat vandag anders gelees word as binne die tyd van publikasie? In die beroemde Freud-museum is daar ‘n film waar Freud met sy beroemde kleinseun stap: Lucian Freud, die skilder. 3.
Die Amerikaanse teoretikus en professor in Frans, Jane Gallop skryf uitsonderlik boeiend oor Freud, Lacan, Kristeva, Sollers, Shoshana Felman en andere in The Daugher’s Seduction. Feminism and Psychoanalysis.
Dit is immers Felman, ‘n Lacaniaanse teoretikus, wat ons daarop wys dat letterkunde die onbewuste van psigoanalise is (Gallop: 1982, 60).
Die onbewuste wat soos ‘n taal gestruktureer is en altyd die Begeerte tot die Ander impliseer. Aldus Lacan.
Die hele kwessie van die verhouding tussen analis en analysant is tersaaklik vir die mentor in ‘n kontrak gesluit aan ‘n universiteit. Hierdie rolle is verwikkeld en mag selfs omkeer. Hierom moet dit per kontrak geskied en meer spesifiek, in kreatiewe skryfwerk word dit van kardinale belang.
Tog: alleen as die student die gesag van die mentor aanvaar, kan die kreatiewe proses bestuur word. In ‘n seminaarkamer, met mede-studente, met tekste wat bespreek word binne die veilige konteks. Totdat die mentor dit as finaal beskou en dikwels betrokke is by die publikasieproses. ‘n Aanbeveling aan ‘n uitgewery; selfs ‘n skutblad-reklame skryf wat deel word van die parateks en die uiteindelike realisering van die teks.
Je veux dire. Ek bedoel …
As die implisiete reëls verontagsaam word (soos ons bespreek nie iemand se probleme buite die klas nie en ons resenseer nie mekaar se werk nie), lei dit uiteraard tot probleme en konflik. Een mentor, nie verskillendes nie. Een sielkundige of dokter – anders onrus en onsekerheid.
Implisiet is daar ‘n oedipalisasieproses betrokke by kreatiewe skryfwerk: die kind (Oedipus) moet die Vader (Laius) verslaan om sy eie identiteit te vind. Of dalk Jokaste uiteindelik hoon?
Indien oedipalisering nie plaasvind nie, mag die student altyd die goedkeuring soek van die mentor of selfs onwetend probeer skryf soos die mentor.
Onwetend of onbewustelik?
Die kreatiewe mentor werk nie net met ‘n teks nie, maar is ook ‘n begeleier van ‘n persoon se psige. Transferensie vind uiteraard plaas en soos Gallop tereg uitwys, word eerste verhoudings getransfereer op die gesagsfiguur (1982: 143).
Mortido of libido?
Die ewige sirkelgang van die letterkunde en psigoanalise.
III
Jane Gallop beskou psigoanalises, meervoudig en altyd in ‘n sirkelgang tot by Freud, vanuit ‘n feministiese hoek.
Letterkunde en psigoanalise: die probleem van lees. Ook “Otherwise: Freud’s Hand”, soos Sollers dit stel: “Imagine, if you will, Freud’s hand in the act of writing his five case histories. Hans, the little finger; Schreber, the long one, between the two thieves, fingered by the Index and the ring: Wolf Man, Rat Man. And finally Dora, the thumb, opposable to all the others. Next, imagine that hand in the mirror: you now have the written work of our time. That is, what is real of it besides, its weight, its relief, its consequence.” (Yale French Studies: 1977, 8).
Haar komplekse analise van Sollers en Kristeva bespreek sy in Hoofstuk 8 “The Phallic Mother: Fraudian Analysis”. 1982: 113 – 131).
Poliloque. Sy breek die teks in twee op sodat die leser gekonfronteer word met haar komplekse argumentasie.
Kristeva, die teoretikus; Sollers, die kreatiewe persoon, die “poet”, wat behoort tot die semiotiese orde. Die vroue teoretikus wat alreeds ‘n buitestaander, ‘n vreemdeling, wat volgens Gallop in manlike taal, te wete teoretiese taal, moet argumenteer (Gallop: 1982, 126 – 128).
Vroueskrywers wat dikwels as die aanvulling of supplement gesien word en steeds in aparte bloemlesings opgeneem word. Tog so ‘n bloemlesing kan ‘n nuwe stempel afdruk soos Karen de Wet bewys het met Vers & vrou.
Wanneer die manlike skrywer – aldus Gallop – die ritmiese taal eksploreer (“writes as a representative of the maternal”) of probeer skryf soos ‘n vrou, is dit “fraudulent”. Terselfdertyd erken Gallop dat sy vashaak …
Watter orde geniet voorkeur?
Alles belangrike punte wat hierdie skrywer tot nadenke stem oor kreatiewe begeleiding.
Kan ‘n manlike mentor byvoorbeeld ‘n vroueskrywer van raad bedien oor eetstoornisse en intens vroue-kwessies? Kan ‘n vroue-mentor ‘n manlike skrywer begelei met ‘n teks oor die weermag of manlike stoombaddens? Wie kan werklik ‘n trans-teks begelei?
Of streef die mentor na ‘n ruimte van neutraliteit?
Oor die jare het die kwessies al hoe komplekser geraak. Hoe sal Groot Verseboek nou daar uitsien met al die stemme en groeperinge?
Wie het nou weer geskryf: “When I was Jung and easily Freuded?”
IV
Freud se hand is inderdaad soos ‘n spieëlbeeld, bykans soos in ‘n Vélazquez-skildery. Bloom, Cixous, Derrida, Felman, Gallop, Jung, Kamuf, Kristeva, Lacan, Laplanche, Mitchell, Sollers, Turkle, Žižek (alfabeties genoem) flits terug.
Dalk ook Jacqueline Rose wat saam met Juliet Mitchell Lacan se école freudienne vertaal het?
Hier te lande het veral Susan van Zyl en Marianne de Jong boeiende studies in hierdie verband geskryf.
Hierom dra ek twee horlosies: die een hou tyd met die Onbewuste en die ander een is vir afsprake.
In die volgende bydrae kyk ons verder na Freud:
Kon Freud werklik Dora se kondisie begryp en haar gevoel dat sy bloot deel vorm van ruiltransaksie? Is alle histeriese vrou “verlei” deur die vaderfiguur? (Gallop: 1982: 143). Hoe gemaak as ons Dora lees as ‘n roman saam met D.M. Thomas se The White Hotel?
Alles vrae vanuit ‘n kreatiewe perspektief.
Joan Hambidge
Genoot aan die Universiteit van Kaapstad
Kaapstad September 2022
Endnote:
1 Die motto staan op bladsy 9.
Join the thumb and middle finger: Dora and Schreber form a
circle. That’s where we have to try to think in spite of all …
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2930442.pdf Besoek 17 September 2022
2 In Memory of Sigmund Freud
W.H. Auden (1907 – 1973)
When there are so many we shall have to mourn,
when grief has been made so public, and exposed
to the critique of a whole epoch
the frailty of our conscience and anguish,
of whom shall we speak? For every day they die
among us, those who were doing us some good,
who knew it was never enough but
hoped to improve a little by living.
Such was this doctor: still at eighty he wished
to think of our life from whose unruliness
so many plausible young futures
with threats or flattery ask obedience,
but his wish was denied him: he closed his eyes
upon that last picture, common to us all,
of problems like relatives gathered
puzzled and jealous about our dying.
For about him till the very end were still
those he had studied, the fauna of the night,
and shades that still waited to enter
the bright circle of his recognition
turned elsewhere with their disappointment as he
was taken away from his life interest
to go back to the earth in London,
an important Jew who died in exile.
Only Hate was happy, hoping to augment
his practice now, and his dingy clientele
who think they can be cured by killing
and covering the garden with ashes.
They are still alive, but in a world he changed
simply by looking back with no false regrets;
all he did was to remember
like the old and be honest like children.
He wasn’t clever at all: he merely told
the unhappy Present to recite the Past
like a poetry lesson till sooner
or later it faltered at the line where
long ago the accusations had begun,
and suddenly knew by whom it had been judged,
how rich life had been and how silly,
and was life-forgiven and more humble,
able to approach the Future as a friend
without a wardrobe of excuses, without
a set mask of rectitude or an
embarrassing over-familiar gesture.
No wonder the ancient cultures of conceit
in his technique of unsettlement foresaw
the fall of princes, the collapse of
their lucrative patterns of frustration:
if he succeeded, why, the Generalised Life
would become impossible, the monolith
of State be broken and prevented
the co-operation of avengers.
Of course they called on God, but he went his way
down among the lost people like Dante, down
to the stinking fosse where the injured
lead the ugly life of the rejected,
and showed us what evil is, not, as we thought,
deeds that must be punished, but our lack of faith,
our dishonest mood of denial,
the concupiscence of the oppressor.
If some traces of the autocratic pose,
the paternal strictness he distrusted, still
clung to his utterance and features,
it was a protective coloration
for one who’d lived among enemies so long:
if often he was wrong and, at times, absurd,
to us he is no more a person
now but a whole climate of opinion
under whom we conduct our different lives:
Like weather he can only hinder or help,
the proud can still be proud but find it
a little harder, the tyrant tries to
make do with him but doesn’t care for him much:
he quietly surrounds all our habits of growth
and extends, till the tired in even
the remotest miserable duchy
have felt the change in their bones and are cheered
till the child, unlucky in his little State,
some hearth where freedom is excluded,
a hive whose honey is fear and worry,
feels calmer now and somehow assured of escape,
while, as they lie in the grass of our neglect,
so many long-forgotten objects
revealed by his undiscouraged shining
are returned to us and made precious again;
games we had thought we must drop as we grew up,
little noises we dared not laugh at,
faces we made when no one was looking.
But he wishes us more than this. To be free
is often to be lonely. He would unite
the unequal moieties fractured
by our own well-meaning sense of justice,
would restore to the larger the wit and will
the smaller possesses but can only use
for arid disputes, would give back to
the son the mother’s richness of feeling:
but he would have us remember most of all
to be enthusiastic over the night,
not only for the sense of wonder
it alone has to offer, but also
because it needs our love. With large sad eyes
its delectable creatures look up and beg
us dumbly to ask them to follow:
they are exiles who long for the future
that lives in our power, they too would rejoice
if allowed to serve enlightenment like him,
even to bear our cry of ‘Judas’,
as he did and all must bear who serve it.
One rational voice is dumb. Over his grave
the household of Impulse mourns one dearly loved:
sad is Eros, builder of cities,
and weeping anarchic Aphrodite.
From Another Time by W. H. Auden, published by Random House. Copyright © 1940 W. H. Auden, renewed by The Estate of W. H. Auden. Used by permission of Curtis Brown, Ltd.
https://poets.org/poem/memory-sigmund-freud Besoek 16 September 2022
Lucian Freud: Naakte meisie
‘n Klein meisie
anoreksies
wys haar kittelaar
nie só uitgeteer
soos ‘n Egon Schiele,
getiteld Prediker.
Beide skilderye
neem my terug na Wene,
Freud se vesting,
stad-van-drome,
repressie
en veral, onvervulde begeerte,
omdat jy nooit
kaal só vir my gelê
het nie, nee.
Iewers in dáárdie stad
gaan jy skuil in ‘n Klimt.
Parodieer jy (en ‘n meisie)
sy twee geliefdes,
wyl ek op ‘n vreemde
kontinent ‘n naakte waarheid
in die gesig staar.
Daar is altyd ‘n hy
en ‘n sy en nog ‘n sy
met ‘n wagtende,
gefnuikte een
wat stipstaar.
Bibliografie:
Barthes, Roland. 1985.The Grain of the Voice. Interviews 1962 – 1980. New York:Farrar, Straus and Giroux. (Vertaler: Linda Coverdale).
De Wet Karen. 2020. Vers & vrou. Kaapstad: Human & Rousseau.
Gallop, Jane. 1982. The Daugher’s Seduction. Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
Lacan, Jacques. Feminine Sexuality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. (Vertaal en ingelei deur Juliet Michell en Jacqueline Rose).
Philippe Sollers & Barbara Johnson. Yale French Studies , 1977, No. 55/56, Literature and Psychoanalysis. The Question of Reading: Otherwise (1977), pp. 329-337 Published by: Yale University Press.
- 1985. Marriage as a Fine Art. New York: Columbia University Press. (In gesprek met Kristeva).
Thomas, D.M. 1981. The White Hotel. Londen: Penguin.
“Ek dink waar ek nie is nie, daarom is ek waar ek nie dink nie …”, aldus Lacan.