Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Psicoanálisis. Mostrar todas las entradas
Mostrando entradas con la etiqueta Psicoanálisis. Mostrar todas las entradas

domingo, 24 de mayo de 2026

Retropost, 2006: Narrative Dreams / Dream Narratives

 

Narrative Dreams / Dream Narratives

En la lista de distribución Narrative-L nos dice Michael Kimmer que va a estudiar los sueños desde el punto de vista narratológico, junto con "un colega vienés", y busca sugerencias...

Hello everybody, 

A Viennese colleague and I are working on a research proposal for the empirical analysis of dream transcripts. We are interested in finding out whether dreams tend to have narrative structure or not, which is a debated issue due to the often bizarre, erratic, highly compressed, and associative way in which dreams seem to unfold.

I would be interested in learning about empirical work around this topic from you, (perhaps even a recent survey article?).

I’d also appreciate discussing different theoretical approaches to narrativity and how they can be transformed into a manageable qualitative code system for a fairly large corpus. After all, how we define the notion will very much influence the answer to our question.

Finally, I would like to raise an issue that might interest those of you conversant with cognitive linguistic theory: The fact that compression plays such an important role in dreams made me think that the conceptual integration framework by Fauconnier and Turner (2002), in which compression plays a major role, might be applicable. Turner in particular, in other publications, has also applied the framework to narrative, but specific ways of bringing it to bear on our topic still elude me.

looking forward to your comments & ideas,

Michael

 

Así que envío esta respuesta (mi primera intervención en la lista):

Dear Michael Kimmer (and fellow members of the list):

"some dreams are born narrative, some achieve narrativity, and some have narrativity thrust upon ’em"!

It seems to me that an analysis of dream narrativity is bound to face, sooner or later, the observer’s paradox, as well as other paradoxes. There is no way to access the content of a dream as opposed to the dream tale, other than to analyze one’s own dreams as compared to one’s (re)telling of them. But if your are both the subject and the object of your experiment, some Heisenbergian distortions may be inevitable: self-consciousness about the project may intervene as a narrativizing factor. Not to mention the problem of privacy, infinite regression, etc., once your dreams have been censored and rearranged in order to be narrated, they will still have to be censored and rearranged in order to be retold along with their previous retellings in your self-analysis. And we haven’t even mentioned the nature of that censorship: Freudian issues of repression, unconsciousness, etc. So that direction of analysis is fraught with self-evident difficulties. And yet an approach to dream narratives that does not address the issue of dream "in-itself" vs. dream narrative is bound to be limited and flawed in a number of ways. Which is not to say that there are not other potentially interesting directions for analysis, including conventional narratological analysis of dream texts (alone) or comparisons of different dream-texts while leaving aside the issue of the dream itself. As to Fauconnier and Turner, I don’t know whether they address anywhere the possible links between their conceptual integration framework and the Freudian concepts of condensation and displacement, the "dream-work", quoi, but that would seem to be a must for this line of analysis. I don’t think I can be much help there, but perhaps other people may offer useful suggestions on how (not) to approach the subject.

All the best,

JOSE ANGEL GARCIA LANDA

Universidad de Zaragoza

 

HERE FOLLOW SOME REJOINDERS: Hi, i’ll add some comments on Tony Jackson’s comments on my comments on dream narratives in capitals... but please don’t assume I’m shouting! this is for the sake of readability.

Tony Jackson:

>I’ve wondered about dreams as narratives too, and also wonder if they’ve been given any detailed treatment by literary narrative theory.

WELL I WOULDN’T BEGIN WITH LITERARY NARRATIVE THEORY BUT WITH FREUD ON DELIRIUM AND DREAMS IN JENSEN’S GRADIVA, OR BETTER STILL WITH HIS INTERPRETATION ON DREAMS, OR WITH ARTEMIDORUS... I’M ENCLOSING A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHICAL LIST IN CASE SOMEONE FINDS IT HELPFUL.

With my understanding of Michael’s project, I don’t see the need to worry about Freud. Unless the project is to be an empirical study of Freud’s theories in particular, most of his ideas won’t matter because they’re not adequately based in scientific kinds of knowledge;

PSYCHOANALYSIS IS NOT A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE, BUT AN INTERPRETIVE, HUMANISTIC AND SEMIOTIC ONE.

and also the theoretical understanding of narrative has come a long way since Freud’s time.

STILL, IF YOU REREAD FREUD YOU MAY BE IN FOR SOME FRESH INSIGHTS ALL THE TIME. BUT BY ALL MEANS, READ ALSO LACAN, DERRIDA, AND WHAT NOT.

For some kind of qualitative coding, I imagine older more structuralist work such as Todorov s or even Propp s would provide the kind of abstracted categories that could be cross-referenced and counted. I wonder, though, if this might tend to reveal only already-established archetypal plots and characters?

BEWARE OF READY-MADE CATEGORIES AND COUNTING. BEWARE OF THE ESPRIT DE GÉOMETRIE. (I LIKE NARRATOLOGY, THOUGH. BUT READ, ALSO, FEYERABEND, AGAINST METHOD.

>I disagree with Jose s worry about getting at the subject of study. If it’s an empirical study, then why wouldn’t you just take the written or spoken report of the dream as the narrative that matters? Just as you take a written story as the story that you’ll study?

BECAUSE A DREAM NARRATIVE IS AN ACCOUNT OF A REAL EVENT, IE THE DREAM. YOU ARE PRESUPPOSING SOME KIND OF AESTHETIC-LITERARY STUDY OF DREAMS AS IF THEY WERE FICTIONS. IT IS, AS I SAID, ONE POSSIBLE AVENUE, BUT A VERY LIMITED ONE. SURELY ONE SHOULD STUDY DREAMS AS DREAMS, NOT AS FICTIONS (WHICH IS NOT TO SAY NARRATOLOGY HAS NOTHING TO SAY ABOUT THEM, QUITE THE CONTRARY).

Then I imagine you could try to bring already established narratological ideas to bear in the examination. I assume with Jose that the subject-object problem would be a basic issue, though I might say narrator-narratee.

OK, THAT IS RELEVANT. BUT DON’T STOP AT THE NARRATOR’S LEVEL. CROSS THE BORDER TO THE AUTHOR’S LEVEL. THE UNCONSCIOUS AS AUTHOR, THE CONSCIOUS AS READER. FOR INSTANCE.

In what sense is the narrator of the dream apart from the audience? And how would you assess such audience distinctions as the kind Peter Rabinowitz has theorized? If there’s compression in plot and image, there’s likely compression of audiences as well.

I VERY MUCH AGREE WITH THE RELEVANCE OF THESE ISSUES. HOW DREAMS ARE TOLD TO A VARIETY OF AUDIENCES... FOR INSTANCE.

In fact I imagine that for this teller-listener issue, Rabinowitz might be a good place to start, though of course he’s arguing about written narrative. But of course this kind of thing would be preliminary. I’m not sure how it could rendered into a qualitative code system.

Maybe the largest conceptual problem would be establishing what narrative is to mean in the first place.

IF WE GO BACK TO BASICS, A DEFINITION I LIKE IS: "NARRATIVE IS A RETROSPECTIVE REPRESENTATION OF A SEQUENCE OF INTERPRETED AND EVALUATED EVENTS" - WITH LOTS OF LEEWAY FOR FUZZY BORDERS AND PARTIAL NARRATIVITY IN CASES WHICH DON’T WHOLLY FIT THE DEFINITION.

Most dreams, I take it, won’t look so good by Aristotle’s standards.

I DARE SAY THEY WON’T!!

Dreams seem to take on much of their basic interest precisely because they wildly violate not just everyday storytelling norms, but also in some ways postmodern norms. Yet they must be taken as they are. They automatically carry a unique[?] kind of authenticity, precisely because they have been, originally, unconsciously ’told ’, and we have to take the report of that original telling as it is.

HERE PSYCHOANALYSIS DISAGREES. THENCE ITS RELEVANCE. I SHOULD SAY, NONETHELESS, THAT MOST OF MY DREAMS DON’T NEED A HEAVYWEIGHT LIKE FREUD TO COME AND INTEPRET THEM.

So dreams tend to fall outside the usual aesthetic and critical judgments. Would we ever have the notion of trying to get better at dreaming, as we do the notion of getting better at verbal or written storytelling?

THAT’S A GOOD ONE!

And if we did have that notion, what would it mean?

ENHANCED CENSORSHIP! MORE FODDER FOR FREUD!!!

Anyway, some thoughts & >Tony Jackson

SAME THING... ALL THE BEST, JOSE ANGEL

PS: I forgot to add, something which hasn’t been mentioned is that the usual narrative function of dreams is (apart as their "real-world" functions, or not quite apart) to act as a mise en abyme of the main narrative frame, or in any case as an interpretive device which helps organize, or problematize, the meaning of the main narrative sequence.

(PS: A narratological rereading of Freud’s Delirium and Dreams in Jensen’s "Gradiva" would seem to be in order).

 

 

La patata transgénica

lunes, 4 de mayo de 2026

Freud ante la esfinge

 

La teoría y la práctica del complejo de Edipo, y otros episodios relativos a la vida de Freud y a su relación con la figura de la esfinge, suponen un curioso caso de enigma irónico o de profecía autocumplida, que por otra parte ya está anticipado en el mito clásico de Edipo o es invitado irresistiblemente por él. Un retropost de 2011. 

Texto completo:

Freud ante la Esfinge: 

Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables

https://doi.org/10.17613/dbv3-h482

Author(s):
José Angel GARCÍA LANDA (see profile)
Date:
2011
Group(s):
Anthropology, Literary theory, Philosophy
Subject(s):
Psychoanalysis, Greek mythology, Literary criticism, Psychoanalytic criticism
Item Type:
Article
Tag(s):
Sigmund Freud, interpretation, Oedipus complex
Permanent URL:
https://doi.org/10.17613/dbv3-h482
 
English abstract: The and practice of the Oedipus complex, and other episodes relative to Freud's life and his relation with the figure of the Sphinx, amount to a curious case of ironic enigma or self-fulfilling prophecy, one which moreover is already anticipated in the classical myth of Oedipus, or appears to be irresistibly invited by it. A retropost from 2011.
Notes:
From a review of Nicholas Ray's 'Tragedy and Otherness'.
 


_____. "Freud ante la esfinge." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 28 July 2011.*

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2011/07/freud-ante-la-esfinge.html

         2011

_____. "Freud ante la esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." Ibercampus (Vanity Fea) 28 July 2021.*

         https://www.ibercampus.es/freud-ante-la-esfinge-41386.htm

         2021 DISCONTINUED 2024 – Online at the Internet Archive:

         https://scholar.archive.org/work/dq467r45f5fxlmc3xxpmagw3we

         2026

_____. "Freud ante la esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables / Freud before the Sphix: Self-Fulfilling Prophecies, Self-Interpreting Interpretations." SSRN 21 Jan. 2022.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=3949892

         2021

_____. "Freud ante la esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." Academia 3 Dec. 2021.*

         https://www.academia.edu/63138559/

         2021

_____. "Freud ante la esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." ResearchGate 27 Jan. 2022.*

         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358138413

         2022

_____. "Freud ante la esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." Humanities Commons 14 Feb. 2022.*

https://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:44591/

https://doi.org/10.17613/dbv3-h482

         2022

_____. "Freud ante la Esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." In García Landa, Vanity Fea  14 Feb. 2022.*

         https://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2022/02/freud-ante-la-esfinge-profecias.html

         2022

_____. "Freud ante la Esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." Net Sight de José Angel García Landa 4 Jan. 2024.*

https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/publicaciones/freudantelaesfinge.pdf

         2024

_____. "Freud ante la Esfinge: Profecías autocumplidas, interpretaciones autointerpretables." Online at the Internet Archive Scholar – Fatcat.*

https://web.archive.org/web/20220214081944/https://hcommons.org/deposits/objects/hc:44592/datastreams/CONTENT/content?download=true

doi:10.17613/dbv3-h482

         https://scholar.archive.org/fatcat/release/4bl4qbjizvh5fjvsvwed6ahfk4

         2026

    

 

 

—oOo—


domingo, 26 de abril de 2026

Tragedy and Otherness

 An audio review on a review of mine...

_____. "Tragedy and Otherness." Review of Nicholas Ray's Tragedy and Otherness. AI podcast on José Angel García Landa's review. Academia 26 April 2026.*

         https://www.academia.edu/1267607/

         2026

 

lunes, 14 de julio de 2025

Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud


Notes (written in 2011) on the first half of Nicholas Ray's book Tragedy and Otherness: Sophocles, Shakespeare, Psychoanalysis ́ (Oxford, etc: Peter Lang, 2009). 

Full text at SSRN:

Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud

https://ssrn.com/abstract=3970734

Ibercampus (Aug. 26, 2021)

Posted: 1 Apr 2022

José Angel García Landa

Universidad de Zaragoza

Date Written: August 26, 2011


Garcia Landa, Jose Angel, Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud (August 26, 2011). Ibercampus (Aug. 26, 2021), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3970734

 

Vanity Fea, Friday, Aug. 26, 2011



 

 

Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud

Notes on the first half of Nicholas Ray's Tragedy and Otherness: Sophocles, Shakespeare, Psychoanalysis. Oxford (etc): Peter Lang, 2009.

Tragedy and psychoanalysis have always been at work within each other—with major tragedies explicitly inspiring Sigmund Freud's work, and with psychoanalysis waiting to be unravelled out of the conflict between next of kin in the works of classical tragedians like Sophocles or Shakespeare. Nicholas Ray works from within the field of psychoanalytic criticism—a little askew, though, as the approach he favors is broadly that of  Jean Laplanche, and he casts a critical gaze on the Freudian concepts and on Freud's account of the self. The Oedipus, notably, is here an object of interrogation, rather than a psychical process which is taken for granted. Ray stresses the complexity of the process by which self relates to other in both tragedies and psychoanalysis, a complexity which may be foreclosed by Freud's own formulations. Or by an overly strict adherence to them.

One significant issue is Freud's early formulation, and then abandonment, of the "seduction theory"—i.e., Freud came to believe that neurotic symptoms did not originate in an actual traumatic childhood episode, furthering instead the view that such traumatic episodes were retroactively created fantasies. This was a crucial step for Freudian psychoanalysis to take, all the more so from the point of view of psychoanalytical poetics, since the psychic material came to be treated as being analogous to fiction. These fantasies are grounded, according to standard Freudianism, on a universal and deterministic process of sexualization. The development of the Oedipal theory coincides with Freud's use of Sophocles and then Shakespeare as illustrations. Ray's book sets out to reexamine the relationship between the theory and the texts, to reread the texts askew from the Freudian view, watching the blind spots of Freud's reading, and to challenge Freud's totalizing and deterministic view of sexuality and fantasy.

This is an interesting project in many senses, not just as a critical revaluation o
f Freudian criticism or a new examination of tragedies by Sophocles and Shakespeare—it also provides suggestive insights for a theory of retrospection and of retroactive effects—what Freud called Nachträglichkeit. Ray's reexamination of psychoanalysis is indebted to Laplanche's critique of the Oedipus: according to Laplanche, Freud's account of psychosexual development is misleadingly endogenous and deterministic and does not make sufficient allowance for otherness, for the unexpectedness and contingency of the encounter with externality and the other. Freud's Copernican revolution of the human subject was also Copernican in a limited sense, that is, it didn't consider the possibility that there might be no center whatsoever for the psyche. 

In Laplanche's poststructuralist version of psychoanalysis, the self is radically de-centered, and this calls for a rewriting of the Oedipus. In abandoning the theory of seduction, and the role it gave to exogenous elements in the constitution of the self, Freud was conniving with the subject's tendency to mask his heteronomy, his dependence on the intervention of the other. Laplanche insists on the fundamental otherness of the messages received by the infant: otherness in the sense that they are fundamentally misunderstood, coming as they come from an unassimilated adult world, and otherness because of their lack of self-transparency to the adults, the senders, as unconscious elements are involved in any message. Therefore Laplanche goes back to the seduction hypothesis with a difference—any interaction between the child and the adult world contains a potential for the element of retroactive traumatism that Freud had identified in his early formulation of the seduction hypothesis. And the subject, and his unconscious, are structured around these unassimilated or insufficiently symbolised elements—all of which is Laplanche's own version of the Lacanian tenet that the unconscious is not so much within the subject as "between" subjects. 

These psychoanalytic models would of course benefit from an integration with a theory of social interaction, and of the social constitution of the subject understood as as an interiorized system of relationships—which was in part R. D. Laing's contribution—although I am not aware of any sustained and satisfactory integration of psychoanalytic work with, say, Goffman's symbolic interactionalism.

Riding on the back of Laplanche's theory of the role of alterity in the constitution of the subject, the self-stated aim of the book is "to endeavour to bear witness to the irreducible alterities which inhabit the three tragedies examined, and the specific ways in which they can be shown to resist the exigency of narcissistic closure to which Freud's thought becomes more emphatically subject after the formal repudiation of the seduction theory" (42). Ray defines, in passing, what a Laplanchian hermeneutics of art might be: a nonprogrammatic encounter with otherness, given that works of art or culture are a prime example of enigmatic otherness, indeterminate messages only partly controlled by the author, and which will produce undeterminable effects, unforeseen by the artist. "In other words, the site of cultural production is a reopening of the subject's originary relationship to the other" (44). And Freud's own production of psychoanalysis was partly derived from his encounter with the enigmatic alterity of Sophocles' and Shakespeare's tragedies. These texts (Oedipus Tyrannus, Julius Caesar, Hamlet) apparently narrate the protagonist's assumption of an identity, a centring of autonomous subjectivity: "Oedipus the fifth-century philosopher, Brutus the revolutionary libertarian, Hamlet the frustrated figure of an ostensibly modern severance from paternal law" (50). 

Ray seeks to identify in the tragedies themselves an originary de-centering at work, one which undermines the protagonist's status as an autonomous subject. These are, moreover, tragedies about parricide, a subject central to Freud's account of ritual and psychic life in Totem and Taboo. Parricide as a move necessary for the coming-into-being of the subject is ambivalent, and Ray further explores its intrinsic ambivalence, already prominent in Freud's analysis, with an added emphasis on the role of pre-existing and external otherness in the constitution of the parricidal subject. That otherness is partly accounted for by "the contingent ideologies of the subject's surrounding culture" (53)—the trajectory of the subject is irreducible to an intrinsic fate. As an analyst, Freud identifies with Oedipus, Brutus, Hamlet—while Ray tries to dissociate himself from this identification and underlines those elements of the text which problematize the protagonist's autonomy, those "forces which threaten the self-presence that Freud is led to assign to the primal, parricidal text" (55).

Ray's reading of Sophocles' Oedipus Tyrannus, and of Freud's reading of the same, emphasizes the elements of enigmatic otherness in the mythical story. This alterity is not adequately addressed by Freud, who "remains blind to the troublingly enigmatic specificity of the tragedy" (59). Oedipus, an optimistic rationalist, relies on his own intellectual strength and minimizes the significance of the Sphinx's challenge—Freud does likewise, calling it a "riddle", whereas the story resonates with more troubling and enigmatic overtones. Ray notes, for instance, that Freud's Interpretation of Dreams, which first addresses the Oedipal theme, was written according to Freud as "a portion of my own self-analysis, my reaction to my father's death" (qtd. in Ray, 61). 

There is also a story told by Ernest Jones about a curious premonitory scene, in which Freud saw himself, like Oedipus, as a riddle solver, apparently without realizing the unconscious irony of this identification. Oedipus' answer to the Sphinx was an answer to a riddle, but Ray notes that it should have been understood as an enigma, not a riddle. An enigma may require an answer, but "any response will be inadequate" (63)—and, moreover, the interpreter's relation to his answer is an enigma in its own right. 

Oedipus was associated to the fifth-century philosophers by Hegel and then by Jean-Joseph Goux (Oedipus, Philosopher), as the emblem of the new humanist paradigm which saw man as the measure of all things, a symbol of Western thought as a whole, actually. Goux notes that, contrary to Nietzsche, Hegel did not realize the troubling and ambivalent consequences that the tragic fate of Oedipus suggests for philosophy. Freud's notion of the unconscious comes to symbolize, too, the dark, pulsional, parrincestual nature of this move, and it is not by chance that "Freud discovers the unconscious and the Oedipal drives at the same time" (Goux, qtd. in Ray 75). Yet the reduction of fate to the unconscious, Freud's own answer to the Oedipal riddle, only has the effect "of displacing the riddle elsewhere, namely 'back' into the primordial constitution of the subject" (Ray, 79). Freud's partial blindness in reading the Oedipus story discloses for Ray "a great deal more about Sophocles' play and, in turn, about psychoanalysis than Freud was fully able to grasp" (83). The Freudian theory of the subject minimizes the role of alterity in its constitution, reducing it to an endogenously determined unfolding, "no more than the manifestation of an initial centrifugal explosion" (86)—but Sophocles' play is about Oedipus' failure to secure himself as a self-sufficient source and origin of his own destiny. 

Ray's reading of Sophocles emphasizes the way in which Oedipus enacts a fate which was not even his, but originally his father's; an interesting intertextual allusion in the self-blinding scene, to Polyphemus' blinding by "Nobody" in the Iliad, emphasizes the way Oedipus believes to the last that he can control his own actions—mistakenly. "Thus, against the tyrannus' continued Oedipean assertions of his own autonomy, the fabric of Sophocles' text allows neither Oedipus' self-blinding nor, in its connection with it, the murder of Laius, to be dissociated from this prior scene of the inscription by the father on the son's body" (99).

One should note the way in which Ray's own "killing of the father" is similarly inscribed within the logic of psychoanalysis. Michel Foucault argued (in "What Is an Author?") that Freud was a prime example (like Foucault himself, one might add) of a novel mode of authorship: the authorship of discourse practices, i.e. new theoretical approaches to the analysis of human
phenomena, a peculiar type of discourse in which the disciples or followers need to refer continually both to the phenomena under discussion and to the foundational texts of the founding father. In this sense, Ray's text is a prime example of Oedipal Freudianism, which makes it all the more suggestive.


 
 
—oOo— 
 
 
 Also here:

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 26 August 2011.* (Nicholas Ray).

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2011/08/tragedy-and-oedipal-subject-sophocles.html

         2011 DISCONTINUED 2025 – Online at the Internet Archive.*

         https://web.archive.org/web/20231120161701/http://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2011/08/tragedy-and-oedipal-subject-sophocles.html

         2025

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." Ibercampus (Vanity Fea) 26 Aug. 2021.*

         https://www.ibercampus.eu/tragedy-and-the-oedipal-subject-sophocles-and-freud-5416.htm

         2021 DISCONTINUED 2024 – Online at the Internet Archive:

         https://web.archive.org/web/20210919231542/https://www.ibercampus.eu/tragedy-and-the-oedipal-subject-sophocles-and-freud-5416.htm

         2025

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." SSRN 1 April 2022.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=3970734

         2021

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." Academia 22 May 2022.*

         https://www.academia.edu/79621132/

         2022

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." ResearchGate 9 June 2022.*

         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361189982

         2022

_____. "Tragedy and the Oedipal Subject: Sophocles and Freud." Net Sight de José Angel García Landa 20 Jan. 2025.*

         https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/publicaciones/tragedyandthe.pdf

         2025

Keep Scrolling