Psychoanalysis and the Family in Twentieth-Century France: Françoise Dolto and Her Legacy by Richard Bates (review)

P. ffrench
{"title":"Psychoanalysis and the Family in Twentieth-Century France: Françoise Dolto and Her Legacy by Richard Bates (review)","authors":"P. ffrench","doi":"10.1093/fs/knad016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Françoise Dolto (1908–1988) was a French psychoanalyst specializing in children and parenting who, as Richard Bates makes clear in this thorough and important account of her life, work, and influence, was also a ‘cultural phenomenon’ (p. 17). Contrasting Dolto’s place in French culture with that of Jacques Lacan, Bates argues that while the latter’s impact was restricted to theory and he addressed the ‘avant-garde elite’, Dolto’s work was directed towards the ‘everyday experience of ordinary French people’ (p. 8). Accordingly, Bates approaches Dolto through the lens of a cultural historian and situates his work alongside other (relatively rare) historical accounts of psychoanalysis as a social and cultural phenomenon. This wide-angle approach enables Bates to demonstrate the ways in which, in contrast to the left-oriented theoretical thrust of Lacan’s work, Dolto was a ‘thoroughly political’ and ‘nostalgically conservative’ figure (p. 13), whose work embodied a ‘ruralist nostalgia’ which reinforced ‘classic heteronormative assumptions’ and assumed an ‘overwhelmingly white and culturally Catholic audience’ (pp. 10, 12). One might suggest then that in the already fraught territory of the politics of the family and parenting, Dolto and ‘Doltomania’ have the status of a Barthesian myth, an allusion justified by Bates’s highlighting of Dolto’s ‘reassuring’ effect on her audience (p. 3). Bates offers a compelling analysis of this myth through meticulous and thoroughly documented research. He tracks the influence on Dolto of the 1930s psychoanalytic authorities, René Laforgue and Édouard Pichon. Their radically heteronormative concepts (for example, Laforgue’s ‘névrose familiale’) and defence of the Oedipal family unit, extending to Pichon’s rabid pathologization of homosexuality and insistence on the traditional division of gender roles, remained ‘cornerstones of Dolto’s later thinking’ (p. 38). A second chapter, ‘Dutiful Daughters’, discusses Dolto’s Catholic and anti-Dreyfusard background, evoking Simone de Beauvoir’s autobiographical memoir in comparison. Moving forward chronologically into the Occupation and its aftermath, Bates shows himself to be particularly adept at disentangling the ways in which Dolto’s barely ambivalent Pétainism played into the rifts in the institutional politics of psychoanalysis that led to her exclusion from the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1953. In the later chapters Bates focuses, with the same perspicacity and measured tone, on Dolto’s championing of the cause of children (as long as the family unit stood firm) and her startling ascription of autism to the ‘pathogenic family’; before a final chapter, which analyses Dolto’s move beyond the terrain of psychoanalysis as such and occupation of the role of media star, through the extremely popular daily radio broadcasts she made from the mid-1970s on. If Bates succeeds in his aim ‘not so much to judge Dolto’s work as to historicise it’ (p. 232), the pernicious implications of her anti-progressive views, in Barthesian terms the abuses hidden in the myth, are starkly illuminated. Whether these are ‘the products of a particular set of historical circumstances’ (p. 232), or problematics embedded in psychoanalytic theory and practice, is a matter for further debate.","PeriodicalId":332929,"journal":{"name":"French Studies: A Quarterly Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"French Studies: A Quarterly Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fs/knad016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Françoise Dolto (1908–1988) was a French psychoanalyst specializing in children and parenting who, as Richard Bates makes clear in this thorough and important account of her life, work, and influence, was also a ‘cultural phenomenon’ (p. 17). Contrasting Dolto’s place in French culture with that of Jacques Lacan, Bates argues that while the latter’s impact was restricted to theory and he addressed the ‘avant-garde elite’, Dolto’s work was directed towards the ‘everyday experience of ordinary French people’ (p. 8). Accordingly, Bates approaches Dolto through the lens of a cultural historian and situates his work alongside other (relatively rare) historical accounts of psychoanalysis as a social and cultural phenomenon. This wide-angle approach enables Bates to demonstrate the ways in which, in contrast to the left-oriented theoretical thrust of Lacan’s work, Dolto was a ‘thoroughly political’ and ‘nostalgically conservative’ figure (p. 13), whose work embodied a ‘ruralist nostalgia’ which reinforced ‘classic heteronormative assumptions’ and assumed an ‘overwhelmingly white and culturally Catholic audience’ (pp. 10, 12). One might suggest then that in the already fraught territory of the politics of the family and parenting, Dolto and ‘Doltomania’ have the status of a Barthesian myth, an allusion justified by Bates’s highlighting of Dolto’s ‘reassuring’ effect on her audience (p. 3). Bates offers a compelling analysis of this myth through meticulous and thoroughly documented research. He tracks the influence on Dolto of the 1930s psychoanalytic authorities, René Laforgue and Édouard Pichon. Their radically heteronormative concepts (for example, Laforgue’s ‘névrose familiale’) and defence of the Oedipal family unit, extending to Pichon’s rabid pathologization of homosexuality and insistence on the traditional division of gender roles, remained ‘cornerstones of Dolto’s later thinking’ (p. 38). A second chapter, ‘Dutiful Daughters’, discusses Dolto’s Catholic and anti-Dreyfusard background, evoking Simone de Beauvoir’s autobiographical memoir in comparison. Moving forward chronologically into the Occupation and its aftermath, Bates shows himself to be particularly adept at disentangling the ways in which Dolto’s barely ambivalent Pétainism played into the rifts in the institutional politics of psychoanalysis that led to her exclusion from the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1953. In the later chapters Bates focuses, with the same perspicacity and measured tone, on Dolto’s championing of the cause of children (as long as the family unit stood firm) and her startling ascription of autism to the ‘pathogenic family’; before a final chapter, which analyses Dolto’s move beyond the terrain of psychoanalysis as such and occupation of the role of media star, through the extremely popular daily radio broadcasts she made from the mid-1970s on. If Bates succeeds in his aim ‘not so much to judge Dolto’s work as to historicise it’ (p. 232), the pernicious implications of her anti-progressive views, in Barthesian terms the abuses hidden in the myth, are starkly illuminated. Whether these are ‘the products of a particular set of historical circumstances’ (p. 232), or problematics embedded in psychoanalytic theory and practice, is a matter for further debate.
《二十世纪法国的精神分析与家庭:弗朗索瓦兹·多尔托及其遗产》作者:理查德·贝茨
francaloise Dolto(1908-1988)是一位专门研究儿童和育儿的法国精神分析学家,Richard Bates在这本对她的生活、工作和影响的全面而重要的描述中明确指出,她也是一种“文化现象”(第17页)。贝茨将多尔托在法国文化中的地位与雅克·拉康(Jacques Lacan)进行了对比,认为后者的影响仅限于理论,他针对的是“前卫精英”,而多尔托的作品则是针对“普通法国人的日常经验”(第8页)。因此,贝茨通过文化历史学家的视角来研究多尔托,并将他的作品与其他(相对罕见的)精神分析作为一种社会和文化现象的历史描述放在一起。这种广角的方法使贝茨能够证明,与拉康作品中左翼的理论推动相反,多尔托是一个“彻底的政治”和“怀旧的保守”人物(第13页),他的作品体现了一种“乡村主义的怀旧”,强化了“经典的异性恋假设”,并假设了一个“压倒性的白人和文化上的天主教观众”(第10,12页)。那么,有人可能会认为,在已经令人担忧的家庭政治和养育子女的领域,多尔托和“多尔托癖”具有巴氏神话的地位,贝茨强调了多尔托对她的观众的“安心”效果,这一暗示是合理的(第3页)。贝茨通过细致而详尽的文献研究,对这个神话进行了令人信服的分析。他追踪了20世纪30年代精神分析权威ren Laforgue和Édouard Pichon对Dolto的影响。他们激进的异性恋规范概念(例如,拉弗格的“nacmivrose familiale”)和对俄狄甫斯家庭单位的捍卫,延伸到皮雄对同性恋的狂热病理化和对传统性别角色划分的坚持,仍然是“多尔托后来思想的基石”(第38页)。第二章,“孝顺的女儿”,讨论了多尔托的天主教和反德雷福萨德的背景,让人联想到西蒙娜·德·波伏娃的自传体回忆录。随着时间的推移,进入占领及其后果,贝茨表现出自己特别擅长解开多尔托几乎矛盾的pannitainism在精神分析的制度政治中发挥作用的方式,导致她在1953年被国际精神分析协会排除在外。在后面的章节中,贝茨以同样的洞察力和谨慎的语气,关注多尔托对儿童事业的支持(只要家庭单位稳固),以及她惊人地将自闭症归因于“致病家庭”;在最后一章之前,这一章分析了多尔托超越精神分析的领域,并通过她从20世纪70年代中期开始的极其受欢迎的每日电台广播,占据了媒体明星的角色。如果贝茨成功地实现了他的目标,“与其说是评判多尔托的作品,不如说是将其历史化”(第232页),那么她的反进步观点的有害含义,用巴尔塞式的话说,就是隐藏在神话中的虐待,就会被赤裸裸地揭示出来。这些究竟是“特定历史环境的产物”(第232页),还是精神分析理论和实践中存在的问题,还有待进一步讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信