精神病 353

精神病 353

This is no doubt what drove Ida Macalpine to raise the most unusual problem
of direct correspondences between the symbol and the symptom. The
apparatus of the symbol is so absent from the mental categories of the contemporary
psychoanalyst that the sole way such relations can be conceived is
through the intermediary of a fantasy. Furthermore, her entire argument
consists in relating the development of the delusion to a fantasmatic theme,
to an originary – original [originelle] according to the usual word today – pre
oedipal fixation, emphasizing that what sustains desire is essentially a theme
of procreation, but one that is pursued for its own sake, is asexual in form,
and only induces conditions of devirilization, of feminization, as a sort of a
posteriori consequence of the requirement in question. The subject is conceived
as born into the sole child-mother relation, prior to any constitution
of a triangular situation. This is when he would have seen a fantasy of desire
born within himself, a desire to equal the mother in her ability to create a


This is Mrs. Macalpine’s entire argument, which I have no reason to pursue
here in all the richness of its detail, since it is within your reach in the
substantial preface and postface to the English edition of Schreber’s text she
has done. It is important to see that this construction is connected with a
certain reorientation of the entire analytic dialectic which tends to make the
imaginary economy of fantasy, the various fantasmatic reorganizations, disorganizations,
restructurations, and destructurations, the hub of all comprehensive
progress as well as of all therapeutic progress. The schema that is
currently so widely accepted, frustration-aggressiveness-regression, is at the
base of everything in this delusion that Mrs. Macalpine thinks she can explain.


She goes a long way in this direction. There is, she says, a decline, a twilight
of the world, and at one point a quasi-confusional disorder of the apprehensions
of reality, only because the world has to be recreated.5 She thus
introduces, at the most profound stage of the mental confusion, a sort of
teleology. The entire myth was only constructed because it is the only way
for the subject Schreber to satisfy himself in his imaginary requirement of


Ida Macalpine’s point of view can no doubt enable us to understand the
putting into play, the imaginary impregnation, of the subject to be reborn –
I’m copying here one of Schreber’s themes which is, as you know, the picturing.


But from such a point of view, in which only imaginary fantasies are involved,
what enables us to understand the prevalence that Freud gives to the function
of the father?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: