Between literature and science: Freud and the demon of interpretation

Abstract

Summary
This essay examines a number of diverse responses, in recent exchanges between psychoanalytic theory, literary theory and the practices of textual analysis, to the ambiguous textual status of Freud's writing - its uneasy position on the borders between literature and science. In Section I a distinction is drawn between Patrick Mahony's reading of Freud in Freud as a writer, and those readings of Freud's texts associated with what has popularly come to be known as "French Freud", in particular Derrida's reading of the second chapter of Beyond the pleasure principle. While the underlying objective of both these readings might be said to be the constitution of Freud's scientific project as itself an example of figurative writing, the outcome of each is crucially different. Section II is directed at the critical tradition for whom Freud's genius was "poetic" rather than scientific; his ideas more valuable as "metaphors" than as literal truths. In Section Ill an alternative approach is put forward, exemplified in Arnold Davidson's reading of Freud's Three essays on sexuality, which presents a version of Freud's "genius" as neither an imaginative nor a rhetorical one so much as a conceptual one. In Section IV it is suggested that Freud's transcendence of the usual boundaries of science was the enabling dynamic of his thought.

Opsomming
In hierdie essay word daar ondersoekend gekyk na 'n aantal uiteenlopende reaksies in onlangse gedagtewisselings tussen psigoanalitiese teorie, literere teorie en tekstueel analitiese praktyke op die dubbelsinnige tekstuele status van Freud se skryfwerk - die prekere posisie daarvan op die grens tussen letterkunde en wetenskap. In afdeling I word 'n onderskeid getref tussen enersyds Patrick Mahony se lesing van Freud in Freud as a writer en andersyds lesings van Freudiaanse tekste wat geassosieer word met wat populer bekend sta.an as "French Freud", in die besonder Derrida se lesing van die tweede hoofstuk van Beyond the pleasure principle. Alhoewel die onderliggende doelwit van albei hierdie lesings moontlik gesien sou kon word as 'n konstituering van Freud se wetenskap­like projek as op sigself genome 'n voorbeeld van figuurlike skryf, is daar ingrypende verskille in die uitkoms van hierdie lesings. In afdeling II word aandag geskenk aan die kritiese tradisie waarbinne Freud se genialiteit getipeer is as "poeties" in teenstelling tot "wetenskaplik" - sy idees het derhalwe grater status gehad as "metafore" as wanneer hulle gelees sou word as letterlike waarhede. !n afdeling Ill word 'n alternatiewe benadering bekend gestel met verwysing na Arnold Davidson se lesing van Freud se Three essays on sexuality, waarin Freud se genialiteit voorgestel word as konseptueel eerder as of verbeeldingryk of retories. In afdeling IV word geredeneer dat Freud se transendensie van die gewone grense van wetenskap ten grondslag le aan die besondere dinamika van sy denke.